The Chairman's Fitness Challenge Blog

There is no shortage of opinion on the "proper" level of training exertion to achieve during work-outs.  The Crossfit approach - hit it as hard as you can, to the point of exhaustion - is at odds with the conventional wisdom to maintain a reasonable, sustainable pace and "leave some in the tank" during workouts.

A Canadian distance runner, Reid Coolsaet, spent some time training in Kenya and was blown away by their approach to training - running as hard as possible to the point of surrender.  This is at odds with the training approach most common in North America for distance runners.

Is it time to factor in this thinking into my workouts... aim to work to failure more frequently and quickly, and achieve more rapid results in terms of endurance and strength?  Hmmmm.....

So says a report in the New York Times as reported by Alex Hutchison at sweatscience.com.  The theory says that the brain needs downtime to function properly, and overloading it with TV's, loud music, and text messaging at the gym really suboptimizes the potential benefits of a focused workout when it comes to brainpower.

I am not sure if the people listening to iPods at the gym are any more or less intelligent than those luddites without them.  (I've seen some pretty stupid behaviour by the iPod group, but the cause-effect relationship is unclear!)  However, I can say that I tossed the iPod for working out long ago, and only use it occasionally for treadmill runs (which I find incredibly boring otherwise.)  During weight training and interval-type cardio, I find the distraction of messing around with my music is a serious distraction that extends my rest times, encourages bad form , and just generally gets in the way.

On the other hand, loud music during cardio (like spin classes) does seem to raise my performance to a higher level.  The beat and the volume are great at encouraging me to keep a steady pace and give maximum effort - the strange part is, at the end of the class, I can't even remember what the tunes were.  I'm apparently not even giving any conscious thought to the music, I'm just reacting to it at a subconscious level and it seems to work.

So, I agree with the article on a strictly empirical basis.  Background music = good; actively working the touchwheel on an iPod during workouts = bad, and texting on their BlackBerry during spin class = you should really think about going next door to Starbucks instead. 





 

The results that people are achieving through the 52 Day challenge can be pretty impressive - body fat loss, muscle and strength gains, and improved performance in any number of different exercises or activities.  How does such a simple, unstructured program work to help participants achieve their personal goals?
One word - ACCOUNTABILITY. The discipline to, first, set the goals, then sit down every day and assess performance, also serves as motivation to work harder towards them. Although this seems obvious to me, a new study from UNC and the University of Kentucky, looking at eating habits, confirms it scientifically.  (The study was reported in the National Post today - LINK).

An interesting finding of the study is that the self-monitoring (writing things down) is a more effective motivator than peer motivation (ie reporting to a group, working with a trainer, or posting in a forum). That actually makes sense to me as well - I know from experience that I can post all I want, but if without wanting the end result enough, I won't make progress towards it. Posting my progress for all the world to see can be motivating, but it is taking the time to plan, log and track progress that sets the table for results, whether I just track it in a personal logbook or post it up for public consumption.

I think the main value of the 52DC forum is it does provide a framework for that sort of self-monitoring - it establishes start dates, end dates, and some suggested categories of goals; the rest of the process is left up to the participants. It is an ideal way to ensure that each participants owns their own goals and is accountable to themselves to ensure the targets are challenging and well-suited to their own fitness/wellness objectives.

I recently read a book co-written by Eric Heiden, MD, called Faster, Better, Stronger.  Dr. Heiden, for those of you a little younger than me, is one of those athletes who competed at the highest level in both summer and winter sports.  Besides competing in the Tour de France as a world-class cyclist, he completely dominated the sport of speed skating for a time, winning a record 5 gold medals in Lake Placid.  He is now a team doctor for the US speed skating team, as well as being a renowned orthopedic surgeon.  Watching him win race after race in the '80 Olympics is probably one of the first times I remember being completely awed by an athlete. I have not seen much discussion of Heiden's book, which lays out a 12-week program for improving anyone's fitness.

Faster Better, Stronger spends its first two sections presenting some in-depth background on the physiology of exercise and food.  It does a good job of explaining, in accessible terms, the relationship between diet, exercise, and overall fitness, while providing insight into the function of the human musculature and cardio-vascular systems, and how they react to work, diet, and exercise.  Two key takeaways for me included the importance of periodization in your routines (cycling through periods of more- and less-intense workload), and how to REALLY measure how hard your body is working (VOmax, anyone?) and what the various levels of effort mean.  The depth of medical knowledge, and the straightforward way it is presented, is where this book really sets itself apart.  Is any of this information going to be new to those who read magazines like Men's Health?  Maybe not, though I'd think it is more detailed, and delves more deeply into the underlying science, than virtually every other source I've seen out there. And you don't need to be an MD to understand it... 

The final section of the book provides workout routines for the 12-week program - the programs themselves will look somewhat familiar to readers of some of the other fitness books out there, but with the added "twist" of periodization.  All in all, while I have no first-hand insight into the effectiveness of the routines, I found the book presents intelligent and accessible information.  I recommend it to anyone wanting to learn more about exercise and how the body responds to it.

I've mentioned Alex Hutchinson's blog before - Sweat Science has some great information explaining, describing, and debunking various aspects of athletics and fitness.  This post - Why weight loss isn’t just “calories in minus calories out”, fleshes out (no pun intended) a lot of the less obvious factors that come into play besides just counting calories.  A few takeaways:  adrenaline dumps fatty acids into the blood stream, promoting the burning of fat; an extra cookie or five minutes extra on the treadmill will have negligible effect in the long term; and simple carbs raise insulin levels and prevent the body from consuming fat cells.

Interesting.  I finally have a scientific explanation for why one lousy 150-calorie beer seems to make me gain weight.  

I stopped stretching before my workouts a long time ago - my warm-up typically consists of a few minutes of light cardio.  Stretching is done kind of mid-work-out - I might stretch my back between sets of a seated row, or stretch out my shoulders after a set of presses.

It's Wednesday, and I feel like I'm hitting a bit of a rut after a great start to the challenge. I missed out on CE's two evenings in a row, after dragging the family to a buffet restaurant on Monday and having a couple pints of beer after class last night. Still ahead of my CE target, but trying to tell myself that isn't helping.

My legs were absolutely leaden during cardio this morning - I almost bailed even before class started since I could feel the inertia. I did power through the 45 minutes, though, and hopefully I'll get a little more spring in my step for tomorrow.

I added a link today to Alex Hutchinson's blog, Sweat Science. It has some great discussion of the scientific research behind fitness and exercise. I'm not all that familiar with the site yet, but will definitely be spending some time digging through it.

Alex Hutchinson had an article in the Globe & Mail this week comparing indoor "spin" class to outdoor cycling. An interesting conclusion - "the ingredients of a typical indoor cycling class somehow combine to lift workouts to heights that most participants wouldn't achieve on their own." Research shows that the group dynamics of a spin class can push participants to achieve a better workout - so much so that some participants exceeded their measured VOmax capacity. (This, by the way, indicates an error in VOmax measurement, not people reaching superhuman output.)

I have become a convert to the "RPM" version of spin class - for me, it achieves many of the objectives of HIIT and interval training in terms of varying intensity, and I tend to work harder than if I'm on my own. YMMV, of course.