Natural Bodybuilding, Fitness, and Peak Performance

“Does Intermittent Fasting Work”; is it better than 5 – 6 meals?

When asking the question “does intermittent fasting work”, do you get the feeling that the ‘fat loss industry’ is getting desperate? And why shouldn’t it? In a context for which the basic formula for success can be as simple as “calories in/calories burned”, they need something more tantalizing to keep an audience spellbound and coming back for more. And what better way to do that than to simply reverse direction every few years? So what was once a hard and fast rule (i.e. eat 5 or 6 small meals a day) is now a scourge to avoid (i.e. “don’t do THAT; it doesn’t speed your metabolism and your body will adapt”).

As if with the predictability of seasonal change, we’ve now got the question “does intermittent fasting work”, which simultaneously raises the question of effectiveness of its seeming diametrical counterpart: “Does higher meal frequency work?” If they both “work”, which one works better? You’ve got to find yourself asking these questions if the “calories in/calories out” formula falls within the realm of mundane for you.

 

'Intermittent Fasting': Is it the best fat burning method or does it cause weight loss at the expense of calorie-burning muscle tissue?

 

But regardless of your affinity to the latest fat loss fads, you’ve got to honestly acknowledge a common phenomenon: the tendency among marketers of such fads to suddenly “pooh-pooh” what came before in favor of what’s hot now. Current proponents of intermittent fasting (IF) are all too quick to not just answer the “does intermittent fasting work” question in the positive, but to likewise claim that the frequent meal technique is abjectly ineffective. 

So let’s not just investigate the “does intermittent fasting work” question; let’s also revisit whether the frequent eating of small meals works.

“Does Intermittent Fasting Work?” Or is it just a case of “out with the old?”

I recall as if it were yesterday even though it was in August of 2001. I was sitting in a trendy bar across from two of my stepbrothers in the popular Gaslamp Quarter of downtown San Diego. We were drinking lots of beer and discussing one of my stepbrother’s latest passions of the time – a disciplined adherence to Bill Phillip’s ‘Body for Life’ principles. What really resonated with Ron more than any other principle of the program was the recommendation of eating 5 to 6 smaller meals each day instead of the common 1 to 3 daily meals in which much of the population partakes.

“I’ve lost fifteen pounds of fat within a couple of months of doing this”, he said enthusiastically. “I’d have never guessed that eating more often could be so effective without trying it myself after reading the book. I’ve never heard of such a thing”

“That’s strange you’ve never heard of it”, I replied with sincere surprise. “Bodybuilders have been doing that for decades.”

And that’s a fact to consider when confronted with the hyped up sales material of those now pedaling the intermittent fasting protocol. It’s not enough for them to merely say that intermittent fasting works; they have to build its credibility by claiming its counter-practice (frequent meals) was wrong all along. But bodybuilders HAVE been using the ‘frequent meals’ technique successfully for decades. And so have millions of people who’ve lost fat and stayed lean using the 5-6 daily meals protocol outlined by any one of dozens of books.

In pointing this out, I’m not attempting to answer the “does intermittent fasting work” question in the negative; I’m merely saying its proponents are being dishonest in selling it from their decided premise – the notion that small, frequent meals have suddenly been found to be woefully ineffective.

“Does Intermittent Fasting Work?” First off… what is it anyway?

The term ‘intermittent fasting’ is actually pretty vague. That’s because its pivotal root word, ‘fast’, covers a range of applications. With even a basic knowledge of the English language, for example, we know that the word ‘breakfast’ is derived from the fact that we’re “breaking” our nighttime “fast” when we eat our first daily meal. Obviously, this implies that even the relatively short period of food abstinence we experience from 6 to 10 hours of sleep is considered fasting.

We also know that the inherent mystique surrounding an extended fast is nothing new. Every major religion places a special significance upon an adherence to fasting. We instinctively know that its practice is an immediate front-line denial of the flesh while its polar opposite (gorging) is, for many of us, a natural first response to hedonistic impulse. We’ve heard the health-nut crowd tell us (for decades) that fasting somehow “cleanses” our bodies – as if it evokes little Ajax scrubbers to surface in our blood vessels and give them the shine of a freshly cleaned kitchen countertop. (Haha… I’ve always wondered how long they imagine our “post-cleansed” eating takes to dull that shine away)

Now we’ve got a certain type of fasting that’s been labeled ‘intermittent fasting’ (IF). Of course, aside from being vague, the name is also a bit ridiculous because all fasting needs to be intermittent. The only other kind would have to be indefinite or “constant fasting” – which would leave us… well… dead, I think. Of course, we could also engage in a one-time fast, which would also result in no intermittency. But there wouldn’t be a point in doing that unless we discover we hate fasting on our first attempt at adopting its intermittent application.

Okay, with semantics discussions out of the way, let’s look at some common terminology used in the realm of ‘intermittent fasting’:

• ADF (alternate day fasting): Just as the name implies – alternating between a day of not eating with a day of… well, eating like a starving person (which you likely will be after a day of fasting). This is typically done in an eating/not eating pattern of either 24 hrs./24 hrs. or 36 hrs./12 hrs.
 
• Fast-Five Diet: A book by Bert W. Herring that outlines an intermittent fasting regimen of 19 hours of daily fasting coupled with 5 hours of daily eating time. Alternatively, there’s a similar intermittent fasting ratio of 20/4. 
 
• CR (calorie restriction): This includes any type of reduction in calorie intake below a baseline of what was consumed regularly before the reduction. Thus, calorie restriction can be accomplished using intermittent fasting, moderate meal frequency, or high meal frequency.
 
• FFM (Frequent Feeding Model): The practice of eating 5 to 6 (sometimes as high as 8) meals per day as a method of eating fewer calories due to calorie intake that’s more commensurate with energy expenditure. Naturally, this is the method that now needs debunking in order to sell intermittent fasting. Funny… I can almost guarantee that the same people who are now lambasting this technique in favor of I.F. were once singing the praises of FFM as the ultimate answer to everyone’s fat-loss desires.
 
• Insulin Sensitivity: Is a term that refers to how well or poorly the body’s glucose-lowering response to insulin is working. ‘Insulin resistance’ (metabolic syndrome) is a condition of extremely low sensitivity to insulin that results in blood glucose levels that are consistently above normal. Insulin sensitivity relates to our discussion of intermittent fasting as it contrasts with the frequent feeding model because some proponents of IF are now attempting to discredit the FFM by claiming the latter lowers insulin sensitivity.

With that basic terminology as a foundation, let’s further investigate the question “does intermittent fasting work.”

“Does Intermittent Fasting Work”: If so… is it just due to cutting calories?

Those who are suddenly marketing ‘intermittent fasting’ are making bold claims that there’s science behind the practice. These claims are apparently based on just a few limited studies done on intermittent fasting. An abstract for a review of such studies, done by K.A. Varady, can be found right here.

In that review, done in November 2010 at the University of Illinois Chicago’s kinesiology department, the effects of daily CR were compared with those of intermittent CR. Daily CR is considered any daily calorie reduction of 15% to 60% below normal intake. Intermittent CR, in this study review, is 24 hours of ad libitum (volitional intake) food consumption intermittently altered with 24 hours of complete or partial food restriction. In other words, it’s slightly modified ADF (alternated day fasting); modified to the extent that “fasting” on the non-eating day did not necessarily involve the complete elimination of food. The study review was to determine the effects of each of these respective CR techniques on weight loss, fat loss, and lean mass retention in overweight and obese individuals.

What were the results?

According to this review, the two methods were comparable in overall fat loss effectiveness with the intermittent CR method possibly being more effective for retaining lean body mass. Granted, the review only had short-term study comparisons (4 to 12 weeks) for contrasting the effects of lean mass loss to fat mass loss between the two CR methods being compared. However, within this time frame, the daily CR studies showed 25% of weight loss attributable to loss in lean mass, whereas the intermittent CR studies showed 10% of weight loss attributable to loss of lean mass.

Wow, one would think a finding like this would have bodybuilders in droves trading their 5-6 meals of daily CR for a “starving day/feasting day” alternative. Why isn’t THAT happening?

For one thing, the studies being reviewed have their flaws. When examining the entire review, one finds that body fat was measured using a different method for those who participated in the daily CR protocols than was used for the intermittent CR participants. Daily CR people were tested mainly with duel energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Intermittent CR groups were tested mostly with bioelectrical impedence analysis. The difference in accuracy between the two methods is enough to create variability in findings that compare the two diet methods.

Another reason for raised eyebrows among bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts being presented this finding is a lack of research on the effects of intermittent CR (or ADF) for those engaged in exercise protocols. Fasting, or any severe calorie restriction, can obviously expose the muscles of a recuperating bodybuilder or athlete to the ravages of catabolism.

This is something to consider for anyone asking the “does intermittent fasting work” question – especially given the importance of muscle building to counter sarcopenia in one’s quest for long-term leanness.

“Does Intermittent Fasting Work” because FFM doesn’t increase metabolism?

Those who are hell-bent on selling us intermittent fasting as a better fat loss method than FFM are quick to rationalize their claims by bringing up the topic of insulin. They say that “insulin stores fat” and “frequent eating raises insulin.” They basically make the following claims to sell their alternate diet philosophy:

• Eating 5 to 6 meals doesn’t really boost metabolism
• Eating 5 to 6 daily meals raises insulin
• Eating 5 to 6 meals suppresses ghrelin
• Ghrelin is a stimulator of HGH (human growth hormone)
• Insulin is a suppressor of HGH
• Fasting is a stimulator of ghrelin and HGH
• HGH is a fat burning hormone
• Thus… intermittent fasting burns fat and FFM makes you fat

“What?”

In truth, ANY eating raises insulin and the degree it’s raised is more dependent on the insulin sensitivity of the individual and the size/composition of the meal. When we fast and then gorge ourselves with food, we get an insulin spike. When we eat frequent meals that are too big and comprised of sugary food choices, we get an insulin spike. If we eat frequent meals but keep them relatively small and low glycemic, we can get less of an insulin spike and less daily net insulin levels than too much sugar with either IF or FFM.

Furthermore, who among us adopts or recommends the frequent meal model under the assumption that it directly boosts metabolism? It indirectly boosts it by helping build calorie-burning muscle tissue with the providence of catabolism-preventing nutrients for recuperating muscles on a steadier basis. I’ve personally always seen it as a tactic to both make calorie intake more easily commensurate with calorie expenditure while simultaneously keeping the body in positive nitrogen balance. Although the required frequency of meals might be excessive at a point, we know the overall method is effective due to extensive anecdotal evidence from years of practice among bodybuilders and fitness contestants.

And even though ghrelin, low blood sugar, and training in a fasted state might stimulate more HGH release, we can’t just assume that this effect overrides any negative effects of tissue catabolism from mini-starvation periods. It might; it might not. It actually might occur to a very limited extent with the law of diminishing return kicking in at a very specific time.

Is there currently enough “science” to know when that time is? No… there’s not.

With that said, please leave us your comments if you’ve used intermittent fasting to lose body fat – especially if you’ve done it while attempting to build or preserve muscle mass.

“What is the Tabata Method”; does it work?

The world of Internet fitness search content is replete with forum questions consisting of members asking “what is it” and “does it work.” Among the many topics is “what is the Tabata method” and “does it work.” We might as well throw the “what is the Tabata method”/”does it work” inquiry into the ranks of questions about similar workout methods we’ve discussed on this blog:

Does P90X work?

Does CrossFIt work?

Does Tower 200 work?

Do weightless workouts work?

Do Boot Camp Workouts work?

Does the Anabolic Amplifier Effect work?

It would be amusing if it weren’t a bit disappointing that people ask questions like “Does the Tabata method work” without having a concise goal-driven context within which to frame the question. As with these other fitness methods, asking “what is the Tabata method” is perfectly legit in and of itself. Asking “does it work” simply begs the counter question:

“I don’t know! What the hell are you trying to do?”

That might be a little blunt for some people’s taste. I’ll apologize for that.

It might also sound somewhat contrarian to knee-jerk responses you get from other fitness experts. As if in cookie-cutter fashion, they’ll often answer questions such as “does the Tabata Method work” with something like the following retort:

“It depends on how hard you WORK it.”

Oh… isn’t that brilliant? It assumes that every lackluster result experienced in physique improvement is due to insufficient work ethic. I’d estimate that in many cases where it is, the lack of work ethic stems from a motivation deficiency. And… the first requirement for maximum and lasting motivation is in knowing EXACTLY what you want and WHY you want it.

In other words, it’s not enough for creating motivation to simply say “… the Tabata method is hard… it’ll have you gasping for air… therefore, it’ll get you in shape… thus, you should do it.” We’ll leave those types of generalizations to fitness trainers who simply want your money or your nod toward them in ‘acknowledgement of expertise’ for showing you ANYTHING toward which you might gravitate.

With that clarification, let’s answer “what is the Tabata Method” and “does it work?”

 

VO2 Test: Does the Tabata method improve the efficiency of bodily oxygen use better than any other exercise routine?

 

 “What is the Tabata Method?” 20 seconds of all-out sprinting – multiple times

• It doesn’t matter what exercise with which the sprints are performed; as long as it’s one that stimulates large muscles and/or multiple muscles. Some popular ones are pushups, pull-ups, barbell squats, front squats, lunges, thrusters, rowing, mountain climbers, heavy-bag punching, treadmill running, and outdoor running. (“Haha”… I guess this means no triceps kickbacks?)

• The exercise is performed at an all-out effort for 20 seconds, with 10 seconds of rest between sets.

• If doing a repetition exercise (like squats or pull-ups), the objective is to safely perform as many repetitions within each 20-second period as possible. For running exercises (outdoor or treadmill), or other aerobic movements (like punching a heavy bag), the objective is to sprint as fast as possible within each of the 20-second periods.

• This pattern of 20 second sprints with intermittent 10 second rest periods is repeated 8 times for a total of 4 minutes of grueling exercise. 

That’s it; pretty simple. The protocol was glommed from a study by a Japanese researcher, Dr. Izumi Tabata, who decided to study the effects of high intensity, intermittent training as compared with those of traditional, moderately-intense aerobic training. The study was done on a group of speed skaters at the National Institute of Fitness and Sports in Tokyo back in 1996.  

What’s the gist of the study’s findings; “does the Tabata method work?” 

As can be seen by the abstract of the study, the takeaway is that both the body’s aerobic capacity (VO2) and anaerobic capacity (ability to exercise at oxygen deficit) can be improved simultaneously with this type of training. Specifically, within the 6-week study, aerobic capacity went up by 14% in the high-intensity trained group while anaerobic capacity improved by 28%. Contrastingly, the endurance trained (ET) group in the study improved VO2 by 10% and didn’t improve anaerobic capacity at all.

“Does the Tabata Method work”: What is ‘VO2’ and ‘Anaerobic Capacity?’

Since knowing whether something will “work” for you is goal dependent, the best way to answer the question “does the Tabata method work” is to have a goal and know whether ‘improved VO2’ and ‘better anaerobic capacity’ are relevant to that goal. This would obviously start with knowing what each of these respective fitness measurements represent.

VO2 is a scientific representation of how the body both delivers and uses oxygen. With each beat of our hearts, oxygen enriched blood is being delivered to our tissues via arterial vessels. When the oxygen reaches that tissue, a certain amount is extracted for energy use by the cells. The efficiency with which this oxygen is pumped by the heart, delivered to tissue, and used by cells is what VO2 is measuring – especially as demand for oxygen goes up during cardio-respiratory exercise.

 

Anaerobic Capacity: Its maximization along with VO2 is essential for performance in combat and other physically intense sports,
 

Think of the heart’s role in this scenario as a giant delivery truck. The truck is filled with sand (oxygen). The truck reaches an opening in the ground to dump the sand (cell). The measurement of VO2 would be (with this analogy) a measurement of how efficiently the truck gets filled with sand and delivers sand to the open hole. Obviously, if this delivery system isn’t very efficient, the truck might move slowly between fill-up and dump-off. It might also not get filled to its maximum and, thus, need to make more trips to the open hole to fill it. With improved efficiency, the truck could move faster, get filled with more sand at pick-up, and deliver more sand at dump-off.

That’s a very simple (possibly simplistic?) analogy.

Anaerobic capacity is what’s tapped into after we’ve reached our max V02 output. What happens at this point is that an oxygen deficit begins to build. In order for the muscles to continue working in the face of this, the body shifts into ‘anaerobic’ (without oxygen) energy production. It does this through a process called glycolysis; a method whereby glycogen (bodily stored sugar) is synthesized into ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate). The ATP is what’s used for fuel by the muscles and its derivation by way of glycogen also produces lactic acid, which creates a burning sensation in the muscles. This system of anaerobic (without oxygen) energy production is also referred to as the lactic acid system of energy.

So… how does this all relate to the questions “what is the Tabata method” and “does it work?”

The studies that Dr. Tabata has done demonstrate that not only can these two systems be worked simultaneously, but they might be optimally improved using the 4-minute exercise protocol of his original study.

“Does the Tabata Method work?” It’s back to the question of goals

If you’re training for improved performance in a physically demanding sport, the Tabata method (for obvious reasons) could be an excellent protocol to adopt. Sports that come to mind would be football, basketball, soccer, speed skating, boxing, martial arts tournaments, and high school/collegiate/free-style wrestling. Any sport that requires a high degree of both aerobic and anaerobic conditioning would fit the bill.

Incidentally, users of CrossFit training often add the Tabata method to their repertoire of (random) fitness routines.

Since evaluation of the Tabata method as an optimal workout for losing body fat deserves its own discussion, I’ll save it for an upcoming entry.

In the mean time, I encourage feedback from readers who’ve used any variation of the Tabata method.

“How Many Reps for Muscle Size?” A muscle hypertrophy question

When you ask yourself the “how many reps for muscle size” question, do you ultimately see it as an inquisition in how to get from point A to point B? I’m asking this because that is the context in which I see the “how many reps for muscle size” question. In other words, rather than simply thinking that there must be a magic number of repetitions that build muscle size, our ultimate objective is to be capable of moving a heavier amount of weight for a higher number of reps than we can now. Only when we can do that will our muscles get bigger than they are presently.

To most experienced bodybuilders, this is obvious. For some who are new to bodybuilding, it’s something that still needs emphasis. I’ve noticed that inherent within the “how many reps for muscle size” question among some beginners is an assumption that the number of weight lifting repetitions – along with the number of sets performed – will somehow create muscle size while being absent of some other very important factors.

What are those important factors?

What about ‘overload?’ What about progression into higher weights and volumes of weight moved? What about training to just the right amount of intensity without overtraining or under-training? These are all factors of importance that should ultimately determine our overall training strategy for muscle building, along with “how many reps for muscle size.”

“How Many Reps for Muscle Size”: Keep your eyes on the real objective

Surprisingly, even in this age of easily dispensable and acquirable knowledge, there’s much disagreement in the answer to the “how many reps for muscle size” question. You’d think by now we’d have some consensus on the topic based on extensive studies. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case; even the most respected “experts” in the field of bodybuilding seem to have different recommendations.

 

Adding confusion to this is the fact that some bodybuilding enthusiasts adopt and recommend repetition numbers based purely on associative observation.

What do I mean by that?

I mean that they observe the repetition scheme of an admired top pro bodybuilder and associate that athlete’s extreme muscle mass with the number of repetitions (or other tactics) that he or she claims to be using. While the pro bodybuilder may be currently using 10 or 12 repetitions, this doesn’t necessarily mean that person’s always used that repetition scheme. Nor does it mean that he or she couldn’t arrive at their current point (or beyond) while occasionally using a different reps scheme. It often only reliably means that this is the repetition scheme they claim to be using right now. 

That ties into my previous point. The bottom line for muscle growth is that in order for our muscles to be bigger, we need to be capable of moving heavier weight for a higher number of reps than we’re capable of now. A Mr. Olympia like Ronnie Coleman doesn’t have huge muscles merely because he uses a magic 10 repetitions during his sets; his muscles are huge because he can perform any number of repetitions using weights with which you and I couldn’t count any repetitions. To drive home the point: If Ronnie Coleman can perform five sets of 10 reps of behind-the-neck presses with 225 pounds, it doesn’t matter if in working his way up to that he once did sets of 7-8 reps with 185 pounds. His muscles are huge because of the place he’s arrived with respect to weight/repetitions. But this doesn’t mean the place he’s arrived is clearly indicative of how he got there.

In other words, the “product” we should keep our eyes on is higher volumes with more weight. Any repetition scheme is just a “process” for getting there. And it can be a fluid process that’s open to interchangeability.

“How Many Reps for Muscle Size”: Muscle Fiber Types

In answering the “how many reps for muscle size” question, the topic quickly turns to muscle fiber types. That’s because we have three different types of muscle fibers (or motor units) that are recruited (and thus, stimulated) under different respective repetition schemes:

• Slow Twitch Fibers: Also referred to as ‘Type l’ fibers or ‘Red Slow-Twitch Fibers.’ They generate energy through aerobic energy transfer and are thus activated during low intensity, long-duration, endurance exercise. Activities such as walking, biking, swimming, and long-distance running will use these fibers and stimulate their primarily mitochondrial and myoglobin makeup.

 

• Fast Twitch (Type lla) Fibers: Also referred to as ‘Red Fast-Twitch Fibers.’ The reference to the color ‘red’ in their name comes from the fact that (like slow-twitch fibers) they’re highly oxygenated with numerous capillaries. This is because they are used (and stimulated) by a combination of aerobic energy transfer (to build more ATP) and ‘myofibril contraction.’ These fibers demonstrate a combination of both slow-twitch and fast-twitch fiber traits. 

 

• Fast Twitch (Type llb) Fibers: Also referred to as ‘White Fast-Twitch Muscle Fibers.’ The reference to ‘white’ in their name comes from the fact that they’re the least capillary dense of the three. That’s because they derive energy almost entirely from anaerobic metabolism (i.e. energy from the ATP-CP system). These fibers are used when the body is called upon to lift heavy weight for low repetitions. Activities like sprinting, shot-putting, dead-lifting, or bench pressing a heavy weight in which the muscles fatigue at 3-4 reps are all examples of utilization of these fiber types.  

 

To simplify slightly, a muscle cell can be stimulated to grow in one of two basic different ways:

1. Myofibril growth: augmentation of the contractile components.
2. Mitochondrial development: the building of more mitochondria.

The myofibrils are the contractile components of the muscles. They create strength by actually collapsing into each other as they contract. This allows them to shorten and increase in circumference as they are activated. When the myofibrils are called into play with heavy, intense, low repetition sets, the protein filaments (actin and myosin) that comprise them are actually damaged and require protein synthesis for repair.

In contrast, the mitochondria run all along the sides of the myofibrils and are considered the aerobic energy-producing “powerhouses” of the cell. They allow for the muscle cell to produce the aerobic output of daily activity and high repetition contractions through the use of oxygen and ATP (adenosine triphosphate). With intense, high repetition exercise, the cell adapts by building more mitochondria (through protein synthesis) which boosts cellular energy storage and ATP production capacity.

 

'Muscle Building Repetitions': The number that's optimal is genetically different among bodybuilders and can vary among muscles of an individual's body

 

Muscles increase in size primarily with myofibril growth. However, some growth can be obtained from mitochondrial development. Furthermore, it’s believed that mitochondrial development helps lay a foundation for myofibril growth over the long term. This, of course, has an influence in answering the “how many reps for muscle size” question.

“How Many Reps for Muscle Size”: Disagreement among the experts

When I became a certified personal trainer through the NFPT, I was surprised by that organization’s textual claims about weight training repetition ranges. In terms of “how many reps for muscle mass”, they basically teach the following:

• 4-6 reps: Myofibril stimulation by working Type llb/fast-twitch muscle fibers.
• 12-15 reps: Myofibril and mitochondrial stimulation by working Type lla/fast-twitch muscle fibers.
• 20-25 reps: Mitochondrial stimulation by working Type l/slow-twitch muscle fibers.

Interestingly, the NFPT recommends that in order to establish a “working training methodology”, we should avoid the repetition ranges of 7-11 and 16-19 respectively.

What’s their reason for this?

They explain that repetitions in the range of 7 to 11 recruit a joint participation of Type llb /fast-twitch fibers and Type lla/fast-twitch fibers and, thus, work neither muscle fiber-type optimally. Similarly, they claim that reps between 16 and 19 will recruit involvement of both Type llb/fast-twitch fibers and Type 1/Slow twitch fibers, working neither type with optimal results.

Whether this very specific recommendation on reps ranges by the NFPT is plausible is open to debate and experimentation. It certainly sits in contrast to the advice of many other experts. Take strength coach Charles Poliquin for example: He advises bodybuilders to use anywhere from 6 to 20 reps depending on variables such as training experience, number of sets, and the particular muscle being worked. Generally speaking, he thinks the lower reps on this scale should be used by experienced bodybuilders and the higher ranges should be used by beginners. He also believes in adding periodization to the strategy of repetition choices. Aside from what he does recommend, he doesn’t designate blocks of reps within these ranges for bodybuilders to avoid, as does the NFPT.

“How Many Reps for Muscle Size”: Is it a genetic thing?

It’s hardly surprising that individual genetic makeup plays a role in the composition and dispersion of muscle fiber type for which each of our muscle groups are comprised. This suggests a compelling role in how many reps for muscle size that each of us might individually chose. You might have predominantly white fast-twitch fibers making up your biceps with a lower number of red fast-twitch or red slow-twitch fibers within that muscle. Similarly, you might have a greater number of red fast-twitch fibers making up your quadriceps muscle than either white fast-twitch fibers or red slow-twitch fibers. Alternatively, you and I could both have an approximate 50 percent mix of two types of fibers throughout most of the muscles of our bodies.

This genetic aspect of muscle fiber type led Arthur Jones to hypothesize that we can apply a simple test for determining how many reps for muscle size. The test consists of finding the one-rep maximum lift of any isolation exercise and determining how many repetitions one can perform with 80% of that weight. As a simple example, if your maximum lift for one repetition on standing barbell curls is 150 pounds, you’d take 80% of that weight and discover how many repetitions you can perform with that weight:

150 lbs. x .08 = 120 lbs.

120 lbs. (max # of repetitions)

If the max number of repetitions you can perform for one set with this submaximal weight is in the range of 4 to 6, then you’ve primarily got white fast-twitch fibers making up your biceps. If the max number of reps come out somewhere in the 8 to 12 range, then you’ve got mostly red fast-twitch fibers within your biceps.

Although this test can be done on any muscle, it’s not without some inherent flaws. The most salient drawback is that even moderately experienced bodybuilder might have already skewed the results with past training. For example, if he or she has had a bias for strength training in the past, the muscles might already have neurological efficiencies built up for this type of training. Conversely, a past bias for higher repetition, aerobic type work will have built up mitochondrial tissue and efficiencies within them. This just means that this test for determining how many reps for muscle is not an exact science, but definitely a tool with which to experiment.

“How Many Reps for Muscle Size”: Concluding with what’s important

When I browse different bodybuilding forums, I can often spot why many people get frustrated with natural bodybuilding. I believe it’s often because they get fixated on elements of subordinate importance. For example, they’ll discuss “how many reps for muscle size” as if there’s a magic number that which, when plugged in, will cause muscle growth in and of itself. They seem to have forgotten (or never realized) that if there’s a weight of an exercise for which they can presently perform 4 sets of 6 strict repetitions, they’ll have bigger muscles when they can take that same weight and perform 4 sets of 10 repetitions. When that successful augmentation occurs, they realize that repetitions are just one component of a bigger puzzle.

It’s putting that puzzle together and getting from point A to point B that my HardBody Success system is all about.

“Does CrossFit Work”; does it provide the epitome of fitness?

Before delving into the “does CrossFit work” question, I’ll preface the topic by acknowledging an encompassing positive point about CrossFit; it brings many previously sedentary people into the fitness lifestyle. This is obviously a good thing. With one of our most daunting present-day problems being a growing obesity epidemic, how can I knock a program whose popularity knocks the couch potato tendency right out of a cubicle warrior’s daily routine? That’d be a form of blasphemy from a guy who believes in and loves physique improvement. So I’m compelled to give CrossFit praise right out of the gate for being “exciting” and “fun” to a good many people. If competitive fun and a big dose of “what’s my workout gonna be today”-type mystery is what gets a large number of the population started in fitness or rededicated to it, I’ve got to give CrossFit credit for that.

This makes the “does CrossFit work” question something to be answered at a slightly more granular level. Actually, this reveals the need for ANY fitness system’s efficacy to be analyzed with greater detail. If we merely judge them on their ability to get people up and moving, then our high school PE teachers gave us routines as worthy as any. Those “changed” a lot. They held us accountable. And they were often competitive (at least when I was in school).

Coincidentally (or maybe not), the guy who started CrossFit is a former high school gymnast. His name is Greg Glassman. And what better way to jump into the “does CrossFit work” question than to study the definition of CrossFit from the founder himself? Below is a video of Glassman providing exactly that to a roomful of eager listeners.

 

 

‘Does CrossFit Work?’ Anatomy of CrossFit’s definition

I’ve watched this video repeatedly and in its entirety and I have completely mixed reactions to Mr. Glassman and his claims. I love some of what he says and I find other things completely laughable. So in our “does CrossFit work” analysis, let’s start with his definition of CrossFit:

“High Intensity, constantly varied, functional movement”

Funny… as a correlative to this definition, he states that when someone asks him what CrossFit is, he wants to “expose them to a workout” so he can say “… see, that’s what CrossFit is” (2:10).

This tells me that it’s no wonder that many CrossFit disciples like to tout and defend its purported effectiveness by stressing “how hard it is.” The guru of CrossFit himself wants to confuse ‘product’ with ‘process.’ Possibly, there’s something inherently indefinite about the goal of this program that spawns a knee-jerk reaction of something like the following:

“Okay… you just try to sprint 400 meters after doing a set of power cleans; it’s hard”

But the question “does CrossFit work” cannot be definitively answered by analyzing its difficulty – nor can any workout. As I explain in my book: ‘An effective workout might be difficult – but that doesn’t mean any difficult workout is effective.’

Now, before you evangelists of CrossFit start chastising me with assumptions that I’m a wimpy writer that’s never met a hard workout in my life, let me beg to differ. In the 1980s, I thrice endured the toughest military training in the world. I was in BUD/S classes 128, 129, and 141. Each of these classes of basic U.S. Navy SEAL Training is unique in its experience of mind-numbing exertion. I can guarantee that whatever you think is a difficult CrossFit workout – you can multiply that by about 100 to get a typical day of workout intensity we experienced in BUD/S class 141. In fact, I’d estimate by our 1980s BUD/S attrition that it’s unlikely that most of you, or Mr. Glassman, could endure the disgustingly painful and arduously killing workouts that I’ve endured in the military’s most elite training. I witnessed it truncate the egos of former U.S. Marines, Army Rangers, and Olympic athletes until they whimpered away with their tails between their legs.

Okay… now that that’s out of the way, here’s what I think about the official CrossFit definition:

• High Intensity (I absolutely love Glassman’s definition and explanation of this)
• Constantly Varied (“stupid is as stupid does” – just another manifestation of ‘muscle confusion’) 
• Functional Movement (mixed opinions – and extremely goal dependent) 

Mr. Glassman defines intensity as work, which he then defines with the following equation:

Time/Force x Distance

I actually love this definition while I’d simultaneously eschew him for his mockery of bodybuilders in this regard. He claims that bodybuilders define intensity “by how red their faces get” and “how much of a scene they make” (5:04) while they attempt to lift heavy weights (aka Mike Mentzer ‘high intensity’). This is an intentional confusion of definition with effect by Mr. Glassman in order to project authority or superiority. Obviously, a bodybuilder can be engaged in a bodybuilding exercise that matches Glassman’s own definition of intensity. He or she could do this and, in effect, show bodily symptoms of what might be labeled “intensity of effort.” Intensity is often reflected by involuntary physiological changes and vocal outbursts – as I’m sure any dedicated “CrossFitter” can attest.

  

CrossFit Workouts: Do they follow any logic...

  

Constantly varied is the part of the definition for which I have the biggest problem and lies at the heart of the “does CrossFit work” question. It’s justified by believers in CrossFit by the fact that their stated goal is proficiency in ten general physical skills: cardiovascular/respiratory endurance, stamina, strength, flexibility, power, speed, agility, balance, coordination, and accuracy. Never mind that they never define what the long-term goal is in each of these categories; leaving that open-ended allows illogical workouts to appear esoteric and scientific.

For those who’d contend that there is logic in these ‘constantly varied workouts’, let me ask you this: If all you did is consider three important variables (like age, experience, and genetically-determined recuperative capacity), how many individual results could come out of a class full of CrossFitter’s responses to any given workout stimulus of each of these ten “skills?” Now add in the fact that workouts in each of these skills will affect recuperation time in all the others. Add on top of that the reality that CrossFit workouts combine movements of numerous different devices for different set and rep schemes. What do you get from all this?

‘You get enough outcome variables to make any claim of “CrossFit workout logic” absolutely absurd.’

Now, I can already hear some of you CrossFit enthusiasts reacting with something like the following response:

“Oh yeah… well we did CrossFit workouts at our Fire Department and we got in better shape than ever and I’m stronger now than before and I can run up stairs easier… and…” (on and on)

Hey… there’s no doubt that CrossFit can provide measurable improvements in capacity of any exercise its proponents deem worthy. The question is whether a CrossFitter is maximally gaining those benefits in relation to his or her goals (assuming they have goals). When someone experiences some improvement using arbitrary workouts, they typically believe it’s the “constant change” that’s providing the results and have no idea the degree they’re shortchanging themselves by NOT using a more systematic approach.

Functional movement is a notion nearly as questionable as ‘constantly varied’ in our “does CrossFit work” analysis. In the Greg Glassman video, he displays additional disdain for bodybuilding with mockery of deltoid lateral raises (16:40) and barbell curling (17:15). He claims there’s “no functional movement in bodybuilding” or “at least not enough.”

If a guy stands in front of an audience and slams bodybuilders while his gut protrudes beneath a sunken chest, I guess he’d damned-well better emphasize the virtues of “functional strength.” He’d also better make it clear to all of us that he has phenomenal blood pressure readings (30:50). That way we can assume that his type of “fitness” is something hidden and he just might possess a lot of it. Aside from whether he does, his mimicking of side lateral raises and the accompanying question “when was the last time you did something like this in real life” is about as asinine as it gets. Here’s my counter question:

“When’s the last time you did something that resembles ‘clean and jerks’ in real life?

Think back in the past week. It’s unlikely you’ve had to clean and jerk anything from the floor to a spot above your head. If the need arose, you probably just got someone to help you. Even in the event that you had to lift your carry-on luggage from the floor to the overhead compartment on an airline flight, your movements only vaguely resembled those of this Olympic power lift.

In contrast, you’ve likely had some occasions in which you needed to extend your arm away from your body with weight in your hand. When you did that, you used the same muscles you’d use doing lateral raises. When you’ve lifted a box and carried it with bent elbows and supinated arms, you were using the biceps in a way more closely resembled by biceps curls than any coveted exercise used by CrossFitters. Wow, imagine that… bodybuilding exercises that provide “functional strength.”

It’s funny that many advocates of ‘functional strength training’ try to appeal to sedentary folks by using something like the following statement:

“We train for functional strength, which helps with things like… grabbing your groceries out of the car… picking up your suitcase and putting it in the overhead compartment…”

  

... or are they arbitrary in order to create esotericism that keeps the masses in followership?

  

Strange; I’ve been doing these silly little bodybuilding workouts for years and my ability to perform all these daily tasks has improved phenomenally. In fact, I’d estimate that my “grocery-from-car-lifting” abilities have probably at least tripled since I’ve been body building with my HardBody Success principles. The added bonus of bodybuilding is that my deltoids actually look good while I’m doing it.

In the video presentation, Mr. Glassman defines ‘functional movements’ in the following manner:

“Movements that are categorically unique in their ability to express power – that is, they have the decided advantage of allowing us to move large loads for long distances.” (11:28)

What?

Can anyone else recognize relativity-laced gobbledygook when they hear it? For example, flipping a tractor tire for a hundred meters clearly represents “a large load” for a “long distance.” But the difference in distance between that and doing a single ‘dead-lift’ is clearly greater than the difference between a dead-lift and a side lateral raise. This leads one to assume that the dead-lifts, as performed by CrossFitters, are measured in distance by number of repetitions. However, this reveals the inherent relativity in Mr. Glassman’s functional movement definition; even single-joint exercises (like arms curls) could be categorized this way. The difference, just like that between dead-lifts and tire flipping, would be in weight used and distance measurements (repetitions for weight lifting). He even mentions ‘pull-ups’ (a bodyweight exercise) as being one of moving “large loads” for “long distances.”

What kind of fuzzy logic is that?

I wonder if I’m the only one who finds another thing absolutely idiotic in the notion of superiority of ‘functional movements’: It’s the belief that only compound, multi-joint movement exercises improve the strength needed for compound, multi-joint movements. This is a huge assumption. For example, why do functional strength fanatics think the pectoral mass built from dumbbell flyes doesn’t improve the strength needed for bench pressing? I challenge any CrossFitter to explain why it wouldn’t. I challenge Greg Glassman to explain why it wouldn’t. Incidentally, he mentions in the video that functional movements are “built into your DNA; they’re part of who you are” (15:07). Assuming that’s a truism, we certainly can’t be creating a hindrance to them when we supplement their strength with isolation movements.

The truth is that bodybuilders actually use both compound movements and isolation exercises; we perform those coveted squats and bench presses. It only seems to be Greg Glassman who’s never noticed this.

“Does CrossFit Work?” To be continued…

Obviously, I could get really long-winded on the topics of fitness and physique enhancement. I’m sure the “does CrossFit work” topic will be covered more in further posts. Since this post is now at about two-thousand words, I’ll finish this “does CrossFit work” segment with some bullets of what I like and what I dislike about CrossFit:

What I like about CrossFit:

• It sparks or reignites enthusiasm for fitness: With evidence of a population more unfit than ever, I’ve got to commend CrossFit for getting people interested and excited about fitness. I can’t deny that many of its members gain workout motivation. 
• It encourages competitiveness: Yes… I am FOR that. In a world too overcome with touchy-feeliness and a notion that “everyone deserves a trophy” – it’s nice to see an organization that actually prizes merit-based competition. 
• It emphasizes measurement in fitness: This is terrific. You can’t markedly improve what you don’t measure. CrossFit teaches accurate measurement and ascribes it the value it needs. 

What I dislike about CrossFit:

• It attempts to be too many things: I understand their objective of “non-specialization”… but spreading oneself as widely as CrossFitters do has more ego-stroking and workout entertainment value than the value of truly excelling at any of their ten physical skills. I think CrossFitters would do well by narrowing things down a bit. 
• It provides little hypertrophy: It’s not surprising to me that most CrossFitters I see have unbalanced physiques or very little muscular shape. The only ones who don’t are those who’ve engaged in bodybuilding prior to joining CrossFit. Most people get really excited about improved bodily shape. CrossFit is not the optimal workout for providing that. 
• It teaches “followership”: I won’t take a cheap shot and call it a cult, as some antagonists do. However, an organization that passes down a WOD (workout of the day) is definitely not teaching adherents how to ultimately think for themselves in regard to body improvement. If the workouts are indeed not random and arbitrary – there should be a book that teaches the methodology.  

I welcome (and encourage) any lively debate on the “does CrossFit work” topic.

“Does Long Jack Work”; Does it improve testosterone levels?

There’s obviously a huge market for men who want to improve testosterone levels. Why else would products with claims of doing so be so conspicuously popping up in cheesy TV and radio ads? They publicize claims of improving libido and solving any embarrassing erectile malfunctions. They carry promises of burning belly fat – of raising energy levels and even potentially improving our golf swings. While a resurgence of ‘T-levels’ could very well contribute to these and other positive effects, it remains questionable whether any presently known ergogenic substances can significantly improve the production of endogenous testosterone.

A popularly marketed supplement for boosting testosterone is a botanical called eurycoma longifolia, or “long jack” for short. It’s extracted from the root of an Asian shrub known as Tongkat Ali. The plant is most prevalent and extensively harvested in Indonesia and Malaysia where its extracts have long been used for aphrodisiacal purposes. This historical use would certainly bode well for its prospects as a possible sex hormone enhancer.

So the question is…“does long-jack work”; can it increase testosterone?

By merely taking the words of its marketers at face value, you’d think the stuff reverts all middle-aged men back to their testosterone-driven, pimply-faced, pubescent versions of themselves – complete with spontaneous “arisings” every few minutes that simply come from frequent and random sexual thoughts (not sure I’d want to go back to that again).

A few rodent studies show evidence that the “does long-jack work” question can be answered in the positive; it’s boosted the testosterone of some lab rats. Anecdotal feedback is mixed, however, suggesting the question “does long-jack work” should be answered with the qualification of it depending heavily on product quality and dosage. Adding to the well-advised idea of keeping a healthy skepticism about such products is the discovery that there are companies selling bogus versions of Tongkat Ali extract. Imagine that – as if it hadn’t too long been a common theme in the “hormone boosting” supplement niche for people to knowingly sell stuff that doesn’t work.

With the questionable scruples of a good many supplement companies as our backdrop, let’s delve a little deeper in our investigation of the “does Long Jack work” question.

‘Does Long Jack work?’ Maybe… at a hefty dosage

A study of male rats done in Penang, Malaysia demonstrated the aphrodisiacal effects of eurycoma longifolia. Researchers gave the middle-aged rodents various fractions of ‘long jack’ at 0.5g/kg of bodyweight for 12 weeks as compared to a control group that received a dosage of saline.

So what were the results; does long jack work?

To put it in slang vernacular, the rats receiving the ‘long jack’ turned into some “horny old goats.” Whether this was due to significantly increased testosterone levels was not tested or documented, but one can surmise this to be the case.

It should be noted, however, that the rats received quite a hefty dosage – equivalent to a 170-pound man ingesting almost 40 grams daily of ‘long jack.’ To put this in perspective, notice that the typically marketed product claiming to contain “potent” dosages of ‘long jack’ list amounts of 300 mg to 500 mg on their labels. Assuming these products have actual Tongkat Ali extracts in them, a person would need to consume 80 to 130 capsules per day to get the dosage the rats received. Whew… expensive! Since these marketers recommend taking 3 or 4 capsules of their products per day, they’re not even in the ballpark of caring whether their products are consistent with study results.

An Italian study at the University of Modena had a similar finding. In this study, rats showing different levels of “sexual sluggishness” were given Tongkat Ali root extract (long jack) for 6 to 12 days. The rat’s testosterone levels increased and so did their “mounting behavior.” Even the rodents that had been sexually impotent became motivated and sexually active due to the testosterone-boosting effects of something in the plant’s extract. However, this occurred with similar dosages of 500 mg./kg. of body weight. Again, to put this in human perspective, it would be relative to a 200 pound man consuming about 45 grams of ‘long jack’ per day.

The question is: Does ‘long jack’ work in humans at lower dosages than were used in rodent tests? According to anecdotal evidence… “yes”, but a measurement of extract strength comes into play.

‘Does Long Jack work?’ Maybe… at the right extract ratio

To make the “does long jack work” question just a little more complicated, it can only be answered with consideration of the strength of extract in the product. That makes sense since the active ingredients are separated from a plant root that has many other properties. Consequently, Tongkat Ali extract (‘long jack’) comes in strengths of 1:50, 1:100, 1:200. These ratios indicate the amount of root that was used to boil out the extract. A 1:50 ratio means that 50 grams of root were used to remove each 1 gram of active extract. Obviously, the most potent products would be those containing a 1:200 ration; 200 grams of Tongkat Ali root to obtain each one gram of extract.

The staunchest advocates of ‘Tongkat Ali’ recommend staying away from any products with labels depicting ‘LongJack’, ‘Tongkat Ali’, or ‘Eurycoma Longifolia’ without specifying the ratio of the extract. That makes sense; since the ratio is important, withholding this information would seem an obvious practice to avoid for proving the reputability of the product based on the ingredients therein. Regardless, many products on the market simply have Eurycoma Longifolia listed as an ingredient among others on the label. This is almost a guarantee that the ‘longjack’ in the product will have little or no effect.

Another factor in answering the “does long jack work” question is product quality. Again, the anecdotal evidence provided by those who’ve used the extract and stand by the claim that it raises testosterone provide rules-to-live-by with regard to this. They say that only extracts from plants of ten years or older are effective. They assert that the active ingredients must be painstakingly boiled out of large amounts of the plant roots as opposed to the root powder being merely extracted and stuffed in capsules along with cellulose fillers.

Something of high importance along with the “does long jack work” question is product safety. Tongkat Ali plants only grow in certain parts of South East Asia. That’s where it’s harvested and where product manufacturing takes place. Of the two countries that grow most of it (Malaysia and Indonesia), it’s said that Indonesian sources are the best choice. This is because there've been allegedly potentially dangerous levels of mercury detected in Malaysian Tongkat Ali.

‘Does Long Jack work?’ Maybe… if the source is reputable

Of considerable importance in the “does long jack work” question are the many counterfeit versions of the product. The demand for real Tongkat Ali is greater than supply, making it an expensive supplement. For this reason as well as the intrinsic remoteness of the plant sources, it’s a prime asset for fake versions. Since any ‘long jack’ counterfeiter can bet on both price sensitivity and inaccessible product verification among a big segment of the market, a huge potential exists for price undercutting with large margins. This is the textbook scenario for a substance to have a larger-than-normal percentage of counterfeit varieties.

That would likewise make eurycoma longifolia a prime object for false negative feedback. If the question “does long jack work” can be answered with a “yes” only in the case of real aged root extracts being used in high enough doses, then the threshold for adequate product potency is high. Anything short of this standard would likely be ineffective. If the stuff actually can increase testosterone, one has to wonder how many product triers many have concluded otherwise due to fake or inadequate product potencies.

I’d love to get feedback (positive or negative) from readers who’ve used ‘Long Jack’ for muscle building, libido enhancement, or health benefits. Your comments are appreciated.

“Natural HGH Release”: Can it be stimulated?

People who are aware of human growth hormone (HGH) and its role in the body often want to know if its release can be naturally stimulated. After all, it’s been deemed “the youth hormone.” Who in their right mind wouldn’t want a regular and hefty dose of ‘natural HGH release’ if it can serve as even a modicum of “the fountain of youth?” This vital hormone is secreted by our pituitaries in large amounts when we’re young. That daily discharge steadily decreases as we age, with a steep drop-off occurring in our late thirties. Given that HGH plays a major role in preserving many things youthful, it’s natural to want to know if natural HGH release can be improved.

Here is just a short list of positive effects of increased human growth hormone (HGH) in the body:

• Lower body fat
• Increased muscle strength
• Higher energy levels
• Improved libido
• Improved skin elasticity
• Improved mental acuity and memory

With these major benefits in mind, let’s start with the realization that there are only four purported ways of increasing natural HGH release. Here are those four methods:

1. Supplementation
2. Exercise
3. Improved diet
4. Improved sleep

 

 
'Natural HGH Release': The lactic acid buildup from fast-twitch muscle fiber work is believed to stimulate it.

 

We’ll start by examining each of these methods of natural HGH release in an attempt to uncover which ones are promising and which are manifestations of slick attempts at trying to separate you and me from our money.

“Natural HGH Release”: Do HGH-releasing supplements work?

A few years ago, I was introduced to a medical doctor who specialized in “hormone replacement therapy.”  I declined his offer to put me on exogenous HGH and testosterone, but something he said resonated with me nonetheless. He told me he’d recently attended a nutritional supplement trade show in Las Vegas. At the show, there was a booth at which representatives of a high profile supplement company were hawking their version of an “HGH releasing secretagogue.” He claimed to have assertively called them out on the fraud in which he perceived them to be engaged:

“Hey… you guys are just ripping people off with that stuff. None of it releases human growth hormone. You’re charging 50 to 60 dollars for a box of pills that don’t do anything.”

He told me that one of them answered back with the following paraphrase:

“Uh… well… we really don’t care. If people want to believe this stuff will cause their pituitary glands to spurt out HGH like stimulated little fire hoses, we’ll sell it to them.”

All these years later, I have to say that time has supported the assertion of the good doctor. His personal incentive to promote HGH drugs notwithstanding, his assessment of the natural products seems right on the money. Secretagogues purported to increase natural HGH release became heavily marketed in the late ‘90s and early 2000s. If any of them were effective, they’d likely have become wildly popular by now. Word-of-mouth about their positive effects would have had plenty of time to proliferate.  As it turns out, their faddish time in the limelight has since died down.

The reason might be due to something else for which the doctor reminded me. He said that these supplements are all based on research findings that suggest supplementation with the amino acid L-Arginine increases natural HGH release. However, the studies that showed L-Arginine to be a potent HGH releaser were all done using high-dose injections of L-Arginine – not over-the-counter pills and capsules containing relatively puny doses of the amino acid.  

An article by Dr. Jarrett Morrow cites a relatively recent study done to discover if oral doses of L-Arginine actually have any effect on HGH release. Despite the finding that both high and low doses increased plasma arginine levels, neither had the effect of increasing HGH, nitric oxide, IGF-1, or insulin levels. That’s a sobering finding for anyone thinking about plunking down their hard-earned cash for bottle of L-Arginine or an ‘HGH secretagogue.’

 

The pituitary gland is where both the manufacture and release of human growth hormone takes place.

 

If you mention these findings to an HGH secretagogue marketer or nutritional supplement store clerk, you’ll likely hear a diatribe about how L-Arginine needs to be “stacked” with L-Lysine, L-Glutamine, an effervescent delivery system, or any number of other nutraceuticals in order to be effective. I can only say that this reminds me of the late 1980s and early 90s when everyone swore that combining arginine with L-Ornithine was the secret to realizing its HGH-releasing magic.

Bottom line: Let the buyer beware when traversing the front lines of supplement marketing for natural HGH release.

“Natural HGH Release”: Could exercise do it? 

Personally, I find the idea of increased natural HGH release through certain exercise protocols to be a much more compelling possibility than attempts to boost it through supplementation. It just makes sense that certain stresses on the body might necessitate increased release of this recuperative hormone as a compensatory response.

Back in the 1980s, a product called Cybergenics was based on the premise that natural HGH release could be increased through a very specific type (and specifically timed) weight training regimen. The prescribed workout was extremely intense, calling for multiple sets of forced repetitions.  Adding to this intensity was the requirement that workouts be done first thing in the morning, on an empty stomach after 12 hours of fasting by the participant. The only calories allowed were a cup of black coffee (no cream or sugar) to help one’s nervous system through the intense workout.

Ironically, if it weren’t for Cybergenic’s obvious excesses, its creator (Scott Chinery) might have been onto something. It turns out that both fasting and intense exercise has been shown to stimulate the pituitary gland to increase the pulsatile frequency of natural HGH release. The Cybergenics protocol combined these workout and fasting demands with supplementation of products containing (among other things)… you guessed it… arginine and ornithine.

So why didn’t the Cybergenics program have lasting impact?

Obviously, if the tissue-damaging demands of a regimen override the recuperative benefits of even an increased amount of regenerative hormones stimulated by that regimen, a negative outcome will result. This was the case with Cybergenics. It might have been on the right track with its HGH stimulatory measures, but it was overkill.  Not even bodybuilding routines that are absent of insane intensifying techniques will result in progress if rest days between workouts are inadequate in number. Thus, weekly workouts consisting of too many sets that are performed with maximum intensity will result in overtraining – an outcome for which increased natural HGH release will likely not compensate.

Natural HGH Release through Workouts: A workable approach?

So… could there be an HGH releasing workout method that’s moderate enough in intensity to be effective? Are there techniques that could feasibly stimulate natural HGH release without completely obliterating the muscles?

Back in 1990, a book was released that outlined a workout protocol that was said to do exactly that. The author’s name is Douglas M. Crist, PhD. His book, ‘Growth Hormone Synergism’, explained a method he called ‘Staggered Volume Training’ (SVT). Though the book has long been out of print, the basics of his methodology are described on a handful of bodybuilding websites.

In a nutshell, SVT advised adherents to perform workouts first thing in the morning on an empty stomach (sound familiar?). These workouts consist of between 6 to 10 sets per exercise of 7-12 reps per set. No more than two major exercises are to be used for each muscle and no more than three minute’s rest is to be used between sets. In addition, the workout weight being used should be between 60% and 70% of the one-rep maximum the trainee is capable of performing on the particular exercises being used.

Here’s where the “staggered” concept comes in: The six to ten sets per exercise are to be done in groups of three – trading off between two major muscle groups. For example, if you were doing chest and back together, you might perform three sets of bench presses followed by three sets of T-bar rows. You’d then go back to three sets of bench presses… then three sets of rows again. Obviously, in doing this, you’d hit nine sets for each of the two body parts after switching between the two exercises five times.

By staggering the sets like this, Crist claimed that the buildup of lactic acid in the muscles could be maximized while keeping the volume of workout weight at the highest level possible. This combination of high lactic acid levels, max volume loads, and low blood sugar levels would cause the pituitary gland to augment natural HGH release.

The author never did describe how the user of this regimen was supposed to apply progressive overload; I guess its application was simply assumed. He was specific, however, in the frequency of working each muscle group in this manner – about every five days. This seems excessive by my estimates, even if natural HGH release is successfully enhanced. And it just might be the “make-or-break” factor that kept Staggered Volume Training from ever taking off.

For whatever it’s worth, the use of L-arginine and L-ornithine in conjunction with this workout is taken in a 2:3 ratio. Mr. Crist recommended 2 grams of ornithine with 3 grams of arginine for those weighing over 200 pounds – 1.5 grams of ornithine with 2 grams of arginine for those weighing 151-200 pounds – and 1 gram of ornithine with 1.5 grams of arginine for those weighing 150 pounds and under. These, of course, were to be taken on an empty stomach before workouts and/or before bedtime. Whether they helped with natural HGH release is debatable.

I’ll admit to never having tried Douglas M. Crist’s SVT program. For any of you who have, I’d love to get your comments at the end of this post.

Natural HGH Release: The Peak 8 Exercise Method

For those who still don’t realize the rewarding benefits of bodybuilding, there’s a ‘sprinting method’ of exercise that’s purported to enhance natural HGH release. The method was developed by Phil Campbell and popularized by Dr. Joseph Mercola. It calls for doing sets of all-out thirty second sprints with intermittent 90-second rest periods in-between. This sprinting workout can be done through actual running or pedaling all-out on a stationary bike. In either case, a two hour period of refraining from carbohydrate consumption following the workout is advised in order to maximize natural HGH release.

It’s called Peak 8 because the ultimate goal is to perform eight of these evenly spaced, thirty second sprints after a 3-minute warm-up period. Campbell and Mercola claim that not only does this work the heart muscle anaerobically but can also increase HGH levels by as much as 530 percent. Like the muscle building workouts of SVT, it’s claimed that this increased HGH release is due to extreme lactic acid buildup.

Whether such a dramatic HGH increase occurs through this type of training and the extent of actual benefits is anyone’s guess. Dr. Mercola himself gives personal testimonial of noticeable fat loss acceleration from using the program. Of course, if I were his trainer, I’d get him on a conjunctive adherence to my HardBody Success bodybuilding protocol to really give him some physique improvement to rave about.

 

'Natural Growth Hormone': Some recommend sets of sprints in order to augment its release.

 

What I find interesting is the idea of combining some Peak 8 workouts with an empty stomached hybrid of SVT and the HardBody Success system. After all, the HardBody Success muscle building principles are very compatible with SVT. And since one of my major principles is allowing more rest days between bodybuilding workouts, adding in a couple Peak 8 workouts would be easy.

I’ll keep my readers posted on whether I test a combination of these methods along with the results I experience.

Natural HGH Release through Improved Diet and Sleep

Up to fifty percent of daily HGH release happens while we sleep. A big nighttime burst in HGH occurs shortly after falling asleep with subsequent sleep-time releases being correspondent with sleep wave patterns. Basically, the more ‘slow-wave sleep’ (SWS) patterns we get, the more nighttime HGH release occurs. This relationship can be readily seen in a study whereby a deprivation of SWS patterns results in reduced HGH release.

Unsurprisingly, nightly bouts of SWS tend to reduce in number and duration as we age. So does release of melatonin, the naturally occurring compound in our bodies that helps us sleep. One has to wonder if these are cause-and-effect occurrences or merely correlative. Would using supplemental melatonin prior to sleep be a good method of improving natural HGH release? It’s definitely a method that’s been used by many people.

Diet-wise, a key to remember is that high insulin seems to be antagonistic to the release of natural HGH. For this reason, it’s often advised to abstain from food intake for four hours before nighttime sleep in order to maximize HGH release. This is where I personally draw the line; going to bed four hours hungry would be my prescription for awakening two hours later with a bad case of the munchies. I personally go as far as carb tapering in order to minimize nighttime insulin levels, but that’s about it.

Ironically, it’s noted in the fourth paragraph of the Wikipedia description of slow-wave sleep that high carbohydrate ingestion can help induce this deep stage of slumber. With this in mind, I find it difficult to believe that blood sugar levels aren’t sufficiently lowered for HGH release by the final hours of deep sleep. At least if one makes his or her final meal of the day consist of exclusively protein and dietary fat, insulin should be sufficiently lowered for the final phases of SWS.

This just underlines the reality that there’s not total agreement on everything pertaining to improvement of natural HGH release.

Your comments and experiences are encouraged.

“Muscle Development”: Techniques for making it balanced

For those of you who are eagerly seeking “muscle development”, an article on balanced muscle development probably seems irrelevant. After all, when we’re underweight, we just want to get bigger… right? But not so fast; an unbalanced gain in muscle development with little regard for proportion often results an appearance that makes being skinny seem attractive by comparison. Really… who wants to work hard in the gym only to project the image of a baboon? But the imbalances created by mindless weight training with the aim of gaining weight rather than achieving balanced muscle development can result in exactly that – the appearance of a brutish primate or, at the very least, a “dumb jock.”

If we’re going to work hard for muscle development, we might as well strive for the kind that appears aesthetic and sophisticated. This means training in a way that avoids over-development in some areas and under-development in others. It doesn’t imply that any of us can obtain perfectly proportioned muscle development; genetic factors see to it that this is nearly impossible. It just means that we can greatly improve the balance and symmetry of our physiques over their current appearances by using some intelligence and discipline.

 

Underdeveloped pectorals and lats are a common problem for beginning bodybuilders.

 

“Muscle Development”: Areas which are often unbalanced

With a couple decades of gym membership behind me, I’ve observed that there are certain muscle development imbalances that appear most prevalently. These are as follows:

• Overdeveloped chest/Underdeveloped lats
• Overdeveloped chest/Underdeveloped deltoids
• Overdeveloped deltoids/Underdeveloped chest
• Overdeveloped torso/Underdeveloped quadriceps
• Overdeveloped front deltoids/Underdeveloped rear deltoids
• Overdeveloped middle chest/Underdeveloped upper chest

This list does not suggest that other imbalances don’t exist. It doesn’t even pretend to be exhaustive. There are definitely some muscles and (even more so) combinations of them that are omitted from this list. I’m only binging up the most prevalent ones I’ve noticed for the purpose of brevity.

It also doesn’t imply – by contrasting the relatively ‘overdeveloped’ muscle to the one needing augmentation – that the bigger one needs reduction in size. I’m of the opinion that a bodybuilder should never seek to reduce the size of any hard-earned muscle mass. He or she should instead seek only to bring up in development the adjacent, undersized muscle.

Muscle Development Imbalance: Big Pecs with Little Lats

Needless to say, big pecs with small lats are a muscle development imbalance that causes the body to appear front heavy. It’s also a very common thing to see in gyms given the relative ease of building pectoral muscles as compared with developing the upper back. Since some bodybuilders can gain respectable pectorals simply by performing some decent presses and some chest-squeezing flyes, they seem to assume that their lats will be just as easy to build. I’ve discovered, however, that gaining thick and wide lats requires concentration and discipline unlike that of building any other muscle.

If you have big pectorals combined with tiny little nubs for lat muscles, don’t blame it on genetics; that’s rarely the culprit. Instead, try applying focus and discipline that 99% of gym-goers don’t apply to their lats exercises. Building thicker lats first requires avoiding the mistake I’ve demonstrated right here. Likewise, making the lats wider demands that we don’t make the mistake I’m depicting in this video. These are common mistakes, so don’t fret if you’ve been making them; just change your tactics and you’ll likely soon be enjoying muscle development in your back that equals that in your pectorals.

Muscle Development Imbalance: Big Chest with Small Deltoids

 Here’s a muscle development imbalance I’ve personally been working to rectify. Actually, it’s my deltoids as a ratio of both my pecs and lats that cause my delts to appear too small. This glaring problem has prompted me to recently rethink my technique on shoulder exercises. After just a couple of small tweaks, my delts are beginning to “pop” and are on their way to being in proportion with the rest of my torso.

The big problem for me was in the way I’d been performing my shoulder presses. Of course, shoulder pressing (“military presses”) is a cornerstone exercise for deltoid size. What I’ve discovered is that there’s an ideal grip width for maximally targeting all three deltoid heads, with emphasis on the middle head. I previously used a wider grip, which is not optimal. It turns out that the best grip on the bar is one that’s neither too narrow nor too wide. Thus, in doing any kind of overhead presses (behind the head, in front, or on a machine), the ideal hand-grip position is one in which the lower arms are at a right angle to the upper arms when the bar is at the mid-point of the press.

 

'Bodyweight exercises': Using techniques like pushups as the cornerstone of a workout almost guarantees unbalanced muscle development.

 

Besides narrowing my grip position on the bar, I’ve added an additional tactic to pressing movements. I now consciously shift the gripping pressure to the inside of my palms (near the thumbs) rather than the middle or outsides of them. This puts the stress more squarely on the deltoids instead of having too much on the triceps. I highly recommend this tactic, along with optimal grip width, for bringing up muscle development of the deltoids.

Muscle Development Imbalance: Big Delts and Puny Pecs

I’ve observed this muscle development imbalance even among top pro bodybuilders. It’s often blamed on lousy pectoral-building genetics. But show me someone with underdeveloped pectorals and, 98% of the time, I’ll show you someone who either refuses, or doesn’t know how, to target their pec muscles.

For example, many aspiring body builders attempt to build their chest muscles with marathon sessions of barbell bench pressing. This often leads to disappointing results for two reasons:

1. Proper form for maximally targeting the pectoral muscles with bench presses isn’t practiced.
2. Even if it were practiced, excessive numbers of sets coupled with inadequate numbers of inter-workout rest days keeps the entire upper body over-trained.

To effectively target the pectoral muscles with pressing exercises, attention needs to be given to the optimal grip width on the bar or machine handles. This is similar to what was described above in regard to shoulder presses for delts development. Many bodybuilders (myself included) make the mistake of gripping at too wide of a point to really create maximum contraction of the pectorals. This can inadvertently shift much of the stress to the deltoids. Gripping too narrowly can, of course, shift too much stress to the triceps. In order to maximize contraction of the pecs, a grip just slightly outside of the elbows is actually optimal. On positive repetitions of presses, a very slight inward pressure toward the middle chest will further stress the pectorals when an optimal grip width is used.

Along with ideally gripping the bars or machine handles on presses, correcting sloppy form on flyes can also work wonders for a lagging chest. I’ve observed that many bodybuilders with underdeveloped pec muscles perform dumbbell flyes in a way that makes them a combination between flyes and presses. Rather than keeping a rigid and only slight bend at the elbows, they choose to make half the exercise movement occur at the elbows, effectively doing a half press/half flye. This combo allows neither segment of the movement to be optimal and often results in relatively unstressed pectoral muscles. To see my demo of the contrast between optimal and suboptimal way of performing flyes, you can check out the video right here.

Correcting the number two reason above is just a matter of reducing the number of sets and/or increasing rest days between workouts.

Muscle Development Imbalance: Big Torso and Small Quads

Here’s a muscle development imbalance I’ve had for quite some time and am currently making great progress in correcting. Although I’ve always worked my lower body with extreme intensity, my tendency to grow in the hips, hamstrings, and glutes has caused my quadriceps growth to suffer by comparison. I’ve been turning this around recently by making a simple but vital shift while performing any type of leg pressing exercise.

The way to shift more of the stress onto the quads with leg presses is actually rather counterintuitive. It requires performing those exercises with emphasis placed on pressing at the heels of the feet rather than the toes. For those of us lacking adequate ankle flexion, this can best be done with leg pressing exercises rather than squats. Simply lift the toes slightly off the leg pressing platform and push the weight from the bottom portion of the feet.  By pressing from the ankles rather than the middle or top of the feet, contraction shifts more to the front area of the quadriceps. This can be of tremendous help in bringing underdeveloped quads up to par with a more developed torso.

 

Good rear delts development depends on proper focus and controlled workout techique to really isolate the area.

 

Muscle Development Imbalance: Big Front Delts with Small Rear Delts

Some of the easiest muscle development imbalances to inadvertently attain are those in the shoulder region. Since there are three heads to the deltoids, it’s a body part that’s very susceptible to overdevelopment in one or two areas while the third gets left behind. Believe me, I know this from personal experience; I’m bringing up my underdeveloped rear delts as of the time of this writing.

The posterior head of the deltoids (rear delts) is often the most difficult to effectively target. It requires special focus and discipline for those of us not possessing the genetic predisposition of size in that area. I’ve noticed, however, that once this little-known focus is practiced, the rewards quickly become worth the efforts; my rear delts are finally beginning to “pop” from making a couple of vital shifts in exercise technique.

The shift to which I’m referring is in the way I perform ‘rear delts laterals’ on a pec deck machine. Whereas I once simply rotated my deltoids backward as if trying to join my scapulas together behind me, I now do the exercise in a much more controlled manner that isolates the outer-most posterior of the rear delts. My focus has simply been shifted from attempting to move the handles behind me to moving them out to the sides. It takes a good deal of discipline to do this and usually requires substantially reducing the working weight. It’s been well worth it though as this has been effectively giving me a much needed peak to the V-shape created by the lats-building technique described above. I highly recommend it for helping correct this muscle development imbalance.

Muscle Development Imbalance: Big Middle Pecs with Small Upper Pecs

This is a very common muscle development imbalance. It’s a glaring one because it often produces a feminine appearance to the chest – something most guys probably don’t want. Conversely, a well-developed upper chest blends aesthetically with wide lats and cannonball-like delts to create a visually appealing upper body – allowing it to simultaneously appear powerful and sleek.

The most obvious reason for underdeveloped upper pectorals is a neglect of doing incline exercises – both presses and flyes. A much less obvious reason for underdevelopment of this region is (believe it or not)… too MANY incline presses and/or flyes. As counterintuitive as that might sound, it happens quite often. The upper pectorals are very easy to over-train.  That’s because they actually come into use when we perform middle-pectoral exercises. So when a bodybuilder performs set after set of flat bench presses and follows that with multiple sets of incline presses, there’s quite a bit of tissue tear-down redundancy involved.  Overtraining a muscle can stunt its growth as surely as not training it at all. Consequently, too much upper pec work can halt growth in the upper region of the chest and the middle pecs can easily appear disproportionately protrusive.

The best way to avoid this muscle development imbalance is by doing nothing redundant for the upper pectorals. In other words, if you perform sets of incline dumbbell flyes for your upper pecs, don’t follow it up with sets of incline cable flyes or pec-deck flyes for the upper chest. There’s no reason for that. Once the upper pecs have been worked by using the pec-building tips covered above in the ‘Big Delts and Puny Pecs’ section, they’re finished; it’s time to rest for their recovery.

Conclusion: Balanced Muscle Development

It’s common to neglect balanced development when starting out in muscle building. After all, when we’re slender and desirous of gaining muscle, aesthetics are usually the last thing on our minds. The sooner imbalances are recognized and corrected, however, the less catching up a bodybuilder will have to do later on when underdeveloped areas become glaringly obvious.

“Picking a Personal Trainer”: Let’s get past the generic advice

If you’re in the process of “picking a personal trainer”, you need more than a typical list of generic advice. After all, picking a personal trainer is not like choosing an auto mechanic or a CPA. Why? Simply because there’s more inherent ambiguity and delay in the results that typical fitness trainers provide than the results provided by most other professions. Think about it: As long as a trainer acts assertively while producing in you bodily fatigue and tightness you hadn’t felt before, you’ll assume the trainer knows what he or she is doing. Moreover, if the trainer is next to clueless and you ask a question to determine if the person does knows what they’re doing, you’ll likely get this answer:

“This stuff takes time; you’ve got to give it at least six months before you really see results.”

 

'Personal Fitness Trainer': A good one will always keep meticulous records in order to monitor feedback and make insightful adjustments.

 
 

Not many professions have that kind of leeway. By the time you realize the trainer provided little more than you could have done for yourself, you’ll have already transferred a big chunk of your hard-earned money to this person. That’s why picking a personal trainer warrants a bit more diligence than, say… picking a landscaper.

Having said that, let’s take a look at the very generic and usual advice you’ll find for picking a personal trainer. In doing so, we’ll acknowledge what’s valuable and worth keeping within that advice – what’s nearly worthless in that advice – and what about it would be more valuable if a caveat or two were added.

‘Picking a Personal Trainer’: The usual list of pointers

Here’s a bullet list of typical pointers to follow when picking a personal trainer. It’s a sort of synopsis taken from several online sources:

• Verify Education of Trainer: Degrees and/or accredited certifications in exercise physiology, exercise program design, and nutrition.

 

• Verify Professional Liability Insurance and Business Policies: When considering an independent contractor who’s not an employee of a facility, make sure the trainer carries liability insurance. In addition, be sure the trainer’s business practices, including billing procedures and cancellation policies, are clear and in writing. 

 

• Verify CPR Certification: Make sure the trainer has updated certifications in CPR and first aid. 

 

• Verify Experience and Specializations: Be sure the trainer has experience working with clients that have had similar goals and specific limitations as you might have.  

 

• Check References: Just as with hiring any professional, the practice of checking personal references is invaluable. Don’t be afraid to ask for them.

 

• Be sure there’s Personal Chemistry: Interact with a prospective personal trainer before hiring them. Be sure there’s rapport and chemistry between you so the sessions are more enjoyable and likely to be successful. When monitoring this, pay close attention to the prospective trainer’s listening skills; this person should be focused intently on your needs and concerns.

 

Although these are all important tips to follow, I have some special pointers and caveats to add to the topic of picking a personal trainer.

‘Picking a Personal Trainer’: The #1 factor before anything else

Before even being concerned with the details of that list, there’s one factor of importance that precedes all others in picking a personal trainer.  In fact, it precedes all else in the successful accomplishment of any important goal. Here it is in a single sentence:

‘Know Your Outcome.’

That’s right. In order to be successful in picking a personal trainer, you need to know EXACTLY HOW you want to improve your body and you need to know EXACTLY from where you’re starting. In other words, you need to specifically identify the gap between where you are and where you want to be. If you can visualize it, that’s even better. The more specificity you have in identifying that gap, the more keenly you can determine whether a potential trainer will help you reach your goals.

In contrast, many people seeking personal fitness training only have a vague idea of what they want. They just want to “get into better shape” or “lose a bit of fat and tone up.”  These types of ambiguous goals only raise the chance of a mismatch between client and trainer and increase the odds of falling short of a truly desired outcome.

Before even approaching prospective trainers, decide what you want with as much specificity as possible. For example, you could come up with something like the following:

“I want to lose 30 pounds of fat and gain 10 pounds of muscle with special muscle gaining emphasis being focused on my chest, back, and shoulders.”

… or…

“I want to build at least 20% more upper body strength in the muscles that will improve my tennis playing.”

… or…

“I want to improve my cardiovascular condition by at least 30% without worsening the nerve damage I have in my feet caused by diabetes.”

While the first example would necessitate hiring a trainer with effective bodybuilding experience, the second example would require one who’s good at developing strength programs for improved sport’s performance. The third example would call for a trainer who can create a good cardiovascular conditioning program while safely working around the symptoms of a serious and complex bodily condition.

The point is this: Your ability to identify the ideal person when picking a personal trainer is only as good as your willingness to precisely define your outcome and accurately assess your current position in relation to that outcome. The rest is much easier after this initial step.

 

 ‘Picking a Personal Trainer’: What constitutes “education” in this field?

 As of this writing, there are no national standards for fitness trainer degrees or certifications. Adding more vagueness to existing qualification standards is the fact that well over a hundred certifying bodies exist. Some require nothing more for certification than online self-study curriculums combined with a few hundred exam questions. On the other end of the spectrum, there are trainers with degrees in nutrition and kinesiology.

Generally speaking, a formal education in nutrition and exercise physiology will likely improve odds that a trainer will provide an effective program and avoid practices that are potentially injurious to clients. In the real world, however, educational credentials don’t guarantee these things and an absence of them doesn’t mean a trainer can’t be phenomenally good. Practical experience has its value. In fact, if I were in the market for a trainer, I’d personally choose one with a lot of practical experience combined with less theoretical knowledge over a highly schooled trainer with little practical experience. But maybe that’s just me. I see it as being similar to the business world; I’ve seen people with MBAs from top schools who admit to having terrible business sense. Conversely, there are entrepreneurs with no formal education in business but whose real-world accomplishments make them bastions of vocational insight. This caveat, as it exists among personal trainers, can probably best be discovered through thorough investigation of personal references.

As a rule, be sure a trainer you’re thinking of hiring is at least certified by an NCCA accredited organization. The NCCA (National Commission for Certifying Agencies) has existed for over 25 years and uses a peer review process to accredit allied health professionals such as nurses, therapists, dieticians, and athletic trainers. In 2003, they added fitness training certifiers to their clientele. There are currently only a handful of fitness certifications that are NCCA accredited. The following is a list of nine of such certifications:

 

American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM)

American Council on Exercise (ACE)

International Fitness Professionals Association (IFPA)

National Academy of Sports Medicine (NASM)

National Council on Strength and Fitness (NCSF)

National Exercise and Strength Trainer’s Association (NESTA)

National Exercise Trainer’s Association (NETA)

National Federation of Professional Trainers (NFPT)

National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA)

 

To reiterate my earlier point about formal education, let me share this: I’ve got nearly thirty years of experience in fitness. I’ve met trainers with degrees in kinesiology and certifications from the American College of Sports Medicine whose instruction I would not seek in a gym setting. On the other hand, I’ve known “uneducated” bodybuilders who’ve forgotten more about effective exercise technique than many college-trained trainers will ever know. This occasional dichotomy, though not a generalization to live by, is something to consider when picking a personal trainer.

‘Picking a Personal Trainer’: Some Unorthodox Tips

If education can’t always be trusted when picking a personal trainer, what’s one to do in an industry that inherently combines ambiguous outcomes, random and esoteric practices, and slick-talking practitioners? Here’s my own personal list of red flags to steer clear of in order to prevent wasting your hard-earned money.

1. If they don’t record anything – don’t hand them your money: Watch a trainer for at least a week as he or she trains other clients. If the “trainer” is merely instructing and counting repetitions without recording anything either on paper or digitally, I’d recommend looking elsewhere. This is the epitome of laziness. They might be fooling their current clients, but they’re not fooling you and me. Effective training requires constant, pinpoint feedback and adjustment. That requires RECORDS. If they tell you they’re keeping it all by memory, get out of the gym ‘coz the “you-know-what” is getting deep in there.

2. Determine if there’s an “exit strategy”: A good trainer should have the objective of making you an independent trainee. They should have YOUR self-interest in mind, and that interest should not be in gaining a life-time, costly gym companion who counts repetitions. It should be in becoming a confident, dynamic, lean, strong, and in-shape person who knows your own body better than ever before.  

 

Good fitness trainers are sticklers for proper form and purveyors of focus and motivation. 

 

When picking a personal trainer, don’t be afraid to ask for a birds-eye view of the entire strategy the trainer has planned before you begin. The first session should be a free consultation. This is where information is gathered from you and the prospective trainer should be listening intently. It’s also the point I’d recommend you ask for a written layout of their entire plan, including an unambiguous explanation of how it will help you toward the outcome you seek. The trainer might need to email it to you after mapping it out. Whatever… if they won’t provide it, hold onto your money and look for someone who will.

3. Steer clear of lack-of-instruction: There must be a hundred ways to use workout equipment ineffectively or only marginally effectively. Contrastingly, there’s an optimal way to perform each exercise so that it maximally ‘works your muscles’ rather than just ‘moves some weights.’ Despite this, I’ve seen countless personal trainers allowing or instructing their clients to perform exercises in a sloppy manner. This is not easy to spot for the beginner who’s stepping into the gym for the first time or hasn’t worked out in years.

Again, my suggestion is to watch a prospective trainer interact with other clients. If the trainer engages in a lot of instruction on how to use proper form, that’s a good sign. Conversely, if the trainer seems to provide minimal instruction while the trainee is obviously using sloppy and uncontrolled form, hold onto your money; there are a lot of good trainers from whom to select.

4. Beware of anything that doesn’t make sense: When you see a “trainer” who’s putting a client with a hundred pounds of excess body fat through a set of ‘triceps kickbacks’, a red flag should go up. At the least, this trainer has his or her priorities mixed up – the exact opposite of a major quality you should seek in a personal trainer. There’s no reason for a person carrying that much cellulite to be doing resistance training. In that situation, all mental and physical resources should be devoted to getting body fat under control.

A trainer might argue that the muscle being built will help the overweight client lose body fat. Don’t buy it. When body fat is majorly out of control, the endocrine system is so out-of-whack that muscle gains would come at a snail’s pace (if at all).

If you witness this kind of ‘dufus activity’ in a prospective trainer, my recommendation is to hold onto your wallet ‘til you see a better one.

5. Steer clear of perpetual esotericism: If tip number one (above) is followed, there should be no reason for a trainer to put you through “mystery activity.” But this is exactly what many will do in order to project the impression that “they’re the expert” and that you’ll likely need them indefinitely or, at least, for a very long time.

Beware of personal trainers who constantly require a balancing act with nearly every exercise instructed. This should especially be the case if your goal is building muscle and strength while losing body fat. A trainer’s tendency to steer clients toward difficult exercises, even when balance improvement was not a client request, often arises from the desire to build trainer/client dependency. Don’t fall for this one if you want maximum results for your money.

Additionally, I recommend looking elsewhere if a trainer attempts to make it all sound especially complicated. Yes… there’s quite a bit to know about exercise performance, workout design, strength enhancement for sports, nutrition, etc… At the same time, none of it is exactly rocket science and much of it is intuitive. Making progress in physique improvement is ultimately about incremental experimentation with sensitivity to feedback. Above all, any effective routine, regardless of specific goal, needs to follow a pattern of overload and progression. If these two combined elements are missing from ANY routine, the results will be disappointing.

A successful trainer/client relationship is really one of mutual dependence; you rely on them for expertise and guidance while they rely on you for commitment, discipline, and willingness to follow detailed recommendations. It should be a balanced relationship. If it seems out-of-balance during the initial consultation, don’t be afraid to balk and keep your options open.

To read my opinion on trainers and steroids, just visit this page when you get the chance.

 

Happy Training!



“Anabolic Amplifier Effect”: Is there such a thing?

First off – full disclosure: If you’re searching the words “anabolic amplifier effect, there are probably some answers you’d like to two obvious questions:

1. Do I market a course based on any notion of an “anabolic amplifier effect?”
2. Do I believe, with my experience, that there’s such a thing as an ‘anabolic amplifier effect?’

The answer to the first question is a definite “no.” The answer to the second is a qualified skepticism. This means I’m compelled by some of the evidence for an ‘anabolic amplifier effect’ while being wary of the lack of extensiveness of that evidence. Accordingly, if I gain indication that this phenomenon exists and it accelerates muscle building gains, I’ll wholeheartedly get behind it. If that happens, I’ll gladly sign up as an affiliate marketer with those who promote this body enhancement method and add it to my product line. Something my readers can definitely count on: I refuse to sell anything that I think might waste their time and money. Conversely, when I get behind something and promote it, it’s because I believe it will actually be of equal or more long-term value than the money they’ll spend on it.

Just beware: If wholly ineffective, the practice of “cycling food intake” to get an ‘anabolic amplifier effect’ could not only waste your time and money, but a lot of gut-wrenching effort as well.

‘Anabolic Amplifier Effect’: What are the claims?

By perusing online bodybuilding articles, you’ll find that the ‘anabolic amplifier effect’ is a name given to the purported muscle gaining effects of cycling one’s calorie intake with so-called “short cycles.” The idea that it will accelerate muscle growth is first embedded in our minds by web copywriters asking what’s called an “obvious truth question”:

“What’s the most anabolic substance known to man?”

Answer: “Food!”

What? Wait a second… I thought food was something I needed to… um, stay alive? I thought it was kind of like oxygen in that sense. Uh-oh… let’s stop that line of thinking before someone gets the idea that ‘air’ is the most anabolic substance known to man. We’ll end up with an ‘anabolic amplifier effect’ program on how to hyperventilate ourselves into muscle growth.

In all seriousness, food is necessary for muscle growth. Well… “duh”, it’s necessary for energy and tissue regeneration throughout the body on a daily basis (am I really writing this?). And yes – insufficient food intake is ‘catabolic’ (promoting tissue breakdown). However, this only means that sufficient food is necessary for normal anabolism – not that an excess (or manipulation) of it will “amplify” that anabolism.

Obviously, if you have good critical thinking skills (which my readers do), you’re probably two steps ahead of me already.

‘Anabolic Amplifier Effect’: A “rebound” of sorts?

One bit of evidence cited for an ‘anabolic amplifier effect’ is based on the phenomenon of competitive bodybuilders experiencing a weight-related “rebound effect” after dieting down for contests. For these competitors, weeks of calorie restrictive dieting results in low to mid single-digit body fat percentages along with reduced glycogen and sodium-induced water retention. This is typically followed by some relief-providing ‘normal’ eating after the contest. When normal eating is resumed, body weight typically shoots back up rather quickly.

Of course, anyone with his or her common sense faculties fully engaged will figure out that this weight gain is due to the muscles filling back up with glycogen, sodium, and water. It’s a ‘refilling’ of something that was subtracted in the days leading up to contest. And this can account for quite a bit of weight fluctuation. I’ve personally witnessed a competitive bodybuilder shoot back up by no less than forty pounds within a week.

Supporters of the ‘anabolic amplifier effect’ claim that this body weight rebound creates an environment of accelerated muscle growth in the body. They say this is due to increased amounts of testosterone, insulin, and IGF-1 that accompany a sudden and drastic switch in calorie intake.

Is there some science that backs up their claims?

‘Anabolic Amplifier Effect’: This is actually nothing new

The idea behind the ‘anabolic amplifier effect’ is nothing new; its origins actually date back to the 1990s. That’s when a Swedish scientist named Torbjorn Akerfeldt came forth with his ABCDE method, or ‘Anabolic Burst Cycling of Diet and Exercise.’ He hypothesized that something akin to intentional “yo-yo dieting” within two-week cycles of calorie overload and calorie deprivation would create fast net gains in muscle mass with minimal gains in body fat.

Mr. Akerfeldt evidently based his hypothesis off a study led by G.B. Forbes and published in the AJCN. The 1989 study, titled ‘Hormonal Response to Overfeeding’, found that volunteer women who were fed 1,200 to 1,600 calories above maintenance for three weeks gained an average of 4.3 pounds of body weight. Of this total weight gain, 46% (or slightly below two pounds) was lean body mass. This body mass was gained without the test subjects engaging in exercise of any kind. The researchers discovered, however, that the women’s insulin, testosterone, and IGF-1 levels doubled within 14 days of this three week period and then began to decline. The researchers believe that the increase in these anabolic hormones is what facilitated the gains in lean body mass.

On the surface, the results of this study can be exciting to natural bodybuilders. Consequently, marketers of ‘anabolic amplifier effect’ programs like to use that emotion in prodding us to make quite a few assumptions. For example, in order to conclude that this study is relevant to bodybuilders, here are just a few of those assumptions:

• The hormonal response wasn’t exclusive to women.
• The hormonal response would happen repeatedly even though the study results were from a one-time, three-week period.
• The hormonal response would be the same (or better) if resistance training were added to the formula. 
• The lean mass gains would be the same (or better) if resistance training were added to the formula.

You might think I’m off the mark by classifying those second two bullets as assumptions. After all, resistance training results in increased lean body mass… right? Not necessarily; resistance training is initially catabolic. It only becomes anabolic when coupled with adequate recuperation between weight training bouts. In fact, overtraining with weights can even result in a reduction of endogenous testosterone production. Hence, to extrapolate that lean body mass gains experienced by non-weight-training women would be equaled or bettered by hard training bodybuilders in the same circumstances is a big assumption.

In fact, think about this: For the ‘anabolic amplifier effect’ to be effective, it would need hormone augmenting capability that overrides any catabolic effects of bodybuilding routines that are combined with underfeeding during the calorie reduction phase of the cycle. Moreover, it would need to have this effect repeatedly. It may well be that it does. However, a one-time doubling of anabolic hormones in non-weight-training individuals that just happened to all be women does not provide ample evidence that it does.

‘Anabolic Amplifier Effect’: What’s the theory behind it?

Similar to proponents of the Paleo Diet, those who advocate calorie cycling for an ‘anabolic amplifier effect’ adduce evolutionary reasons for its alleged effects. In this case, it’s the “feast or famine” environment that our nomadic ancestors constantly found themselves in that’s said to be the reason that anabolic hormones can be manipulated using short-term calorie cycling.

The theory goes something like this: When ancient man caught and ate some game, his body released muscle building enzymes and hormones to facilitate catching more game. These enzymes and hormones shuttled more glycogen and amino acids into the muscle cells. This bodily anabolic environment, however, would only last for a couple of weeks. The body would quickly shift over to more of a fat-storing mode in order to protect man from the elements in the event that further game catches were not immediately forthcoming.

In a nutshell, it’s this evolutionary phenomenon that Torbjorn Akerfeldt theorized is what accounts for the ‘short cycle’ hormonal changes that were observed in the women of the G.B. Forbes study,

‘Anabolic Amplifier Effect’: How come the ABCDE method never took off?

Back in the 90s, Torbjorn Akerfeldt was actually interviewed by Bill Phillips in the pages of Muscle Media 2000. The entire four-part interview has been posted online at this blog. Funny… I remember reading the interview in those magazine pages back then and being compelled by the content. One has to wonder: How come during the 15 years that have since transpired, the ‘Anabolic Burst Cycling of Diet and Exercise’ has never taken off?

Fueling this question is another observation.  I saw that Torbjorn Akerfeldt mentioned in the interview that he was using the system himself. Phillips buttressed this claim by mentioning how developed the researcher was as a bodybuilder. But in all the time since that interview, you’d think something that had been working so well would have resulted in at least one physique shot of this guy surfacing to back his claims. After all, Mr. Akerfeldt said it was possible to gain 2 to 5 pounds of muscle during each “cycle.” Even on the low side of that claim, this would potentially result in 24 pounds of muscle per year – a solid size-surge that would have your average steroid user green with envy. I’ve not found such a picture displaying the researcher’s physique development. Admittedly, the absence of it is neither here nor there as disproof of his system. However, the discovery of one would constitute some nice supporting anecdotal evidence of its efficacy.

‘Anabolic Amplifier Effect’: We’d love to get your feedback

As mentioned at the beginning of this article, I reserve a qualified skepticism about this system. I definitely don’t buy the words of some of its current marketers who claim they’ve used it and “gained eight pounds of muscle” in a matter of weeks. If this were true, the method would have taken off in the 1990s and the side effects of steroids would have long been in the ash heap.

If you’ve tried any type of “micro-cycling” of calories and/or macro nutrients for purposes of anabolism, we’d love to hear your sincere feedback in the comment section. And since this blog is only about discovering and divulging the truth, any claims of rapid muscle growth should be accompanied by a link to at least some before/after pics – and preferably… a truth detector test.

“Does Ripfire Work?” Gee… here we go again

Anyone who’s stumbled on by blog by Googling “does Ripfire work” should ask themselves a question based on two separate online postings. The first one to consider is the ‘Ripfire’ website itself. It contains sensationalized claims (both direct and implied) that ‘Ripfire’ improves strength, muscle size, and fat loss. It has the typical endorsements by up-and-coming athletes eager to sign a contract with companies that will pay them to help market any lousy product that comes along. It’s got the ‘before-and-after pics’ in which the depicted people won’t even show their faces. At first glance, in fact, you’d think the ad was for Force Factor with a different label thrown on.

The second posting to consider is from the ‘Ripfire blog.’ It’s an entry pertaining to the topic of my post previous to this one. It seems that the Ripfire ‘blog person’ (whoever that is) has written a blurb about the promise of mustard plant extract in helping to build muscle. Now ask yourself the following question if you’ve got the “does Ripfire work” question burning in your mind:

‘If Ripfire works as claimed, why is there even a consideration as to whether mustard seed extract might work?’

It’s kind of funny… huh? It’s as if the marketers of Ripfire are claiming they’ve got a product that delivers tangible results while hoping there’s an ingredient coming in future that… um… actually delivers… uh… tangible results.

This type of nearly contradictory messaging is similar to something I pointed out in my entry titled ‘Does Nitrobol Work.’ A prominent marketer of Nitrobol has bombastically claimed possible gains of 10 to 20 pounds of muscle in weeks from using it. In subsequent email marketing, he’s introduced other products that he claims could produce 10 to 20 pounds of muscle gain within weeks. But if Nitrobol could produce such muscle gains, who in Sam’s hell would need anything else? In fact, if the claims about the Nitrobol were true, it’d put everyone else (including steroid dealers) out of business.

The same holds true for products like Ripfire and Force Factor. Additionally, if they’re even half as effective as claimed, there’d be no reason for marketers to put first-time customers of these products on an auto-ship/billing program. The product would speak for itself. Customers would be so jazzed with their results that they’d volitionally pull out their credit cards to pay for subsequent weeks of using the products.

So if you’re asking the ‘does Ripfire work’ question, here’s the first thing you might want to try. Call the company’s phone number and ask the operator if you can make a single, one-time, money-order purchase of the product to try it out. If the answer comes back something like the following hymn-haw:

“Uh… well… no, you gotta use this stuff for a longer time in order to see results…”

… Just answer back with this question:

“Okay… how about if I buy two bottles with a mailed-in money order as a one-time purchase to find out if it works?”

If they’re still hymn-hawing at that point, you’ve got your answer to a rudimentary investigation into the question ‘does Ripfire work.’

‘Does Ripfire Work?’ Just say “no” to N.O.

One of the less savory things that the marketers of Ripfire have done is neglect to disclose the ingredients of the product on their website. They do, however, provide a page that gives us a clue as to how they claim it “works.” They say it increases the body’s nitric oxide production. This, it’s purported, leads to the following stated benefits:

• It enhances blood flow and oxygen delivery to muscles
• It increases stamina and endurance
• It helps prevent fatigue during strenuous workouts

 

'Does Nitric Oxide Work' in helping build a better body? Despite claims by marketing companies that it does, there's absolutely no science backing these claims.

 

Before you go any further in your ‘does Ripfire work’ investigation, I encourage you to at least skim a description of nitric oxide and its role inside the body. I challenge you to discover any research findings stating that nitric oxide (N.O.) has been shown to increase workout stamina. You’re more likely to find evidence that coffee improves workouts. But despite this evidential absence, the Ripfire website contains the claim “The Science behind Nitric Oxide.”

Wow… that’s some friggin’ nerve.

I would love it if nitric oxide supplements actually did anything that marketers of it are claiming it does. What bodybuilder wouldn’t want a product to deliver enhanced workout performance and improved recovery? If nitric oxide really did that, it would earn the kudos and regular use of every bodybuilder and athlete in the world.

‘Does Ripfire Work?’ The “Double-Whammy” against it

Ripfire doesn’t provide nitric oxide directly with the use of its product. A bit of online research reveals that Ripfire contains supplemental L-arginine, a conditionally non-essential amino acid that’s often purported to increase nitric oxide synthesis in the body. The veracity of the claim that L-arginine can do this is questionable to say the least. For example, take a look at the abstract of a study done at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada. Basically, the researchers in this study found that 10 grams of L-arginine administered to eight healthy young men failed to increase nitric oxide synthesis or muscle blood flow.

If we couple the findings of that study with those of this one, we find that the claims being made about Ripfire are even more flimsy. In this other experiment, it was found that 3,700 mg of arginine alpha-ketoglutarate (AAKG) failed to improve muscle endurance in a study of twelve, trained, college-aged men. 

With these findings, would you bet money on Ripfire “working?”

In a nutshell, we don’t just have an absence of evidence that arginine supplementation increases nitric oxide production in the body – we’ve got evidence that it doesn’t. In addition, we have no evidence that increased nitric oxide would improve workout performance or recovery even if it was significantly increased. That’s a double-slam in the negative as an answer to the “does Ripfire work” question.

All the while, companies like the one behind ‘Ripfire’ have the nerve to post blurbs with the following claim:

“The science of nitric oxide.”

‘Does Ripfire Work?’ My motives for exposing these products

My motive for exposing the false claims behind products like Ripfire and Force Factor is two-fold:

1. I hate seeing bodybuilding and fitness neophytes waste their money the way I did when I was young and new to physique improvement. 
2. I won’t allow unscrupulous marketers to smear the reputation of an entire industry just so they can make a quick buck off the existing hype of bogus product ingredients.

If you’d like to read a bit more of my experience with bogus bodybuilding products, you can find that right here.

Above all else, make sure you train intelligently and recuperate fully. These two things will get you further than any supplement’s otherwise subtle benefits.