Aragon Alert!

Well, I’ve taken myself a nice long break from the world of blogging, and it’s time I got myself back in the saddle. No excuse, really, except holiday sluggishness.

What finally got me going again was an email from my colleague Alan Aragon, a nutritionist and dietician whose seminar I attended (and discussed here) about a year ago. I don’t know Alan that well, but I really liked his angle on things: he never takes studies or trends or whoop-di-do ideas at face value. Whenever some new gem pops up in the fitness world—particularly as it pertains to diet—Aragon will crank it through the meat-grinder of his own perceptive and freakishly well-informed mind and come up with the straight skinny for those of us more credulous types without a thousand letters after our names and the patience and wherewithal to sort the dross from the genuinely substantial.

A skeptic among the faithful is a valuable commodity: what good would the first STAR WARS movies have been without Han Solo, the wisecracker in the background undermining every starry-eyed platitude about The Force that Mark Hamill takes in with such puppyish enthusiasm. When Solo starts to believe—even a little bit—at the end of the first movie, we start to think, hey, maybe Obi-Wan was onto something.

And do we ever need our skeptics in the fitness world. If the responses to my CrossFit post from a few weeks ago tells me nothing else, it’s that for many people, a fitness program is tantamount to a religion (T.C. Luoma has an ever-profane take on this same topic here). My swipes at Intelligent Design and my comments about presidential candidates didn’t meet with anything near the deluge of protest I received when I opined that every single person in the known universe may not have all their fitness needs and dreams and desires entirely satisfied by CrossFit. With a tip of the hat to Ray Kybartas, for many—hey, maybe for ME—fitness is a religion.

Without the Alan Aragons out there to check and challenge us (and there are others out there, too!), we fitness types would be a bunch of snake-oil charletons, getting by on a shoeshine and a smile.

So it was great to hear from him. The email in question included a sample of his newest project: a monthly newsletter called the ALAN ARAGON RESEARCH REVIEW. From this first issue, I gather Alan’s intention is to sum up the latest studies in the science rags and lay journals and pretty much sort it all out for us: the AARR will tell us which studies make sense, which ones don’t, which ones are laughably biased or fatally flawed, and the few-and-far-between that represent real innovation.

Much of this information would be available to anyone inclined to pore through all of it, it’s just that so few of us ARE. I’ve been a member of the NSCA for a couple of years now, and one of the big perks is receiving a huge tome of studies on diet and exercise methodologies every month. I always tear into my latest issue of the JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING with gusto, only to glaze over after reading a handful of abstracts. Sure, the folks at NSCA are doing valuable work, and for heaven’s sake, they should go on with it. But for the most part, they’re the theoretical physicists, toiling away at the outer reaches of this field, coming up with theories that are well beyond the pale of usage for average gym-goers like you and me.

Some of the studies offer definitive proof in the roundness of the world, the existence of gravity, or the greenness of grass. Others modify common knowledge so slightly and tentatively that the results are almost meaningless. But ever so often, I’ll come across a study or two that sees to be saying something really groundbreaking, but I’m just so unscientifically inclined that it’s sometimes tough to be sure that I’m reading what I think I’m reading.

Now, there are plenty of lay resources out there, too, which are clearly written and easy to understand, but there you have the opposite problem: whereas science journals offer tons of substance with precious little application (“Effects of Post-Exercise L-Glutamine Supplementation on Amino Acid Uptake in Hypoglycemic College Pole-Vaulters”); many lay resources offer tons of application of questionable substance (“Lose 25 Pounds of Flab in Eight Days!”).

So what’s to do? Stuck between reams of impenetrable science on one side and glossy pages of empty promises on the other, the average fitness Joe might feel inclined to throw up his hands and settle in for an afternoon of Captain Kangaroo and bon-bons. But Alan’s RESEARCH REVIEW pulls it all together. He’ll tell you if a study on the benefits of Snickers bars was sponsored by Hershey, or if the article about the dangers of soy was underwritten by the National Council for the Advancement of Carnivorism. Want to know what’s new, what’s hip and most importantly, what’s EFFECTIVE in the fitness world? Check it out. Alan’s one of the good guys.

New ACSM Exercise Guidelines Rundown

Well, it's here at last folks! What we've all been waiting for. No, I'm not talking about the confounded iPhone! Not the '08 election results! Not the answer to those small-minded questions "Are we alone in the Universe?" or "What happens to our souls after we die?" I'm talking about the new exercise parameters for optimal health offered by the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association!

This is the kind of thing that fitness writers everywhere love to write about, because it's so easy to take potshots at a group that undertakes an impossible task like prescribing exercise routines for millions of people they've never met. So, without further ado, let the armchair quarterbacking, nitpicking, and utterly uncalled-for snarkiness begin!

For those of you who haven't heard -- and, come on, you've been looking forward to this since the last ones came out in 1995! -- the weekly guidelines are:

20 minutes of vigorous cardio activity, 3 times a week
OR
30 minutes of moderate cardio activity, 5 times a week
AND
2 sessions of 10-12 strength training exercises for 8-12 reps.

So here's what I think. And, just to continue with today's "unoriginal" theme, I'm calling it, 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.' And remember, you heard it here 2,345th:

THE GOOD:

1) Strength Training. Hurrah! The benefits -- for mobility, strength, posture, joints, bones, and countless other health indicators -- have been so clear for so long that the only question is, why has it taken this long to make strength training a compulsory part of healthy living?

If you fed me a couple of beers, I'd offer the theory that it has something to do with the "muscle for muscle's sake" movement that kicked up in the '60's. People saw these muscular, proto-bodybuilders coming off of Muscle Beach and wondered if all that extra bulk could really be good for you. (Never mind that most of those guys were training with gymnastic-type moves that we'd now classify under the "Functional Training" umbrella -- which itself is a corrective to all the aesthetic training that people were doing in an attempt to emulate... the original Muscle Beach crowd! The sweet irony of it all...) The suspicion stuck, and weight training was relegated to the freaky side of the tracks till pumped-up movie stars and chrome-plated health clubs dragged it kicking and screaming, first into the popular mainstream, and eventually into the good graces of the American Heart Association. Hallelujah.

2) More Activity Overall. Ah, at last, the days of "20 minutes of walking three times a week is all you need for optimum health, weight control, and the vim and vigor of an 19-year-old Pep Squad leader" are behind us. Come on, people: a dog who only walked a total of an hour a week would chew its legs off. These new parameters are more realistic. Plus, an additional caveat that people seeking weight control or reduction will probably need MORE activity is also laudable. This further suggestion also implies -- albeit faintly -- that optimal exercise guidelines may be an individual matter.

3) Vigorous Activity. Earlier guidelines drew almost no distinction between the relative benefits of window-shopping and wind-sprinting up the side of a mountain. Now, at the very least, there's a suggestion that vigorous activity is an important part of the equation, even if it's classified as an option and not an absolute requirement. Half a huzzah for that one.

THE BAD:

1) Over-Emphasis on Moderate Exercise. If I hear, read, or get an ESP message from one more trainer warning me that I absolutely must be able to carry on a conversation while I'm exercising lest I give myself hives or pleurosis or Anthrax poisoning, I'm seriously going to explode like the 'wafer-thin mint' guy in 'Monty Python and the Meaning of Life.' This is a vestige of the "training zone" breakdown seen on the control panel of every treadmill in history, which suggests that fat is burned only below a certain effort threshold.

But that, my friends, is nonsense. As my colleague (and consummate b.s. detecting-pro) Alan Aragon once said to a roomful of seminar attendees, "Sitting there in your chairs, you are ALL in the fat-burning zone." By this 'fat-burning zone' logic, a completely sedentary TV-watching slug should be the fittest, leanest guy in Red Rock, because he's burning fat all day long.

Moderate exercise, like brisk walking, or a round of golf, should be considered something you do IN ADDITION to formal exercise, not in lieu of it. It's just not strenuous enough to create a training effect. Walk a mile a day with no attention to the time it takes you or the effort involved, and over time you'll just get slower and slower until pretty soon you're cutting it down to a half-mile, then a quarter-mile, then watching people walk around a track on the Wish-I-Could-Still-Do-That Network. I'm not saying NOT to do these activities; just not to fool yourself that they're going to help you make significant improvements in your health.

2) Few Specifics on Strength Training Parameters. Using the new ACSM/AHA guidelines, I could go into the gym and do a single set of eight reps each of bicep curls, concentration curls, dumbbell curls, EZ-bar curls, preacher curls, tricep kickbacks, tricep pushdowns, one-arm dumbbell tricep extensions, crunches and calf raises with weights so light they practically lift themselves, and skip home whistling "When the Saints Go Marching In."

Alternatively, still sticking to their program, I could do three sets of twelve reps each of squats, rows, chins, deadlifts, bench presses, overhead presses, dips, hanging leg raises, and lunges, all with weights that I can barely handle, and need to be airlifted home. One workout will do almost nothing for all but the frailest gym-goers; the other would probably come close to over-training all but the fittest athletes.

So what exactly is meant by "2 sessions of 10-12 exercises of 8-12 reps per week?" Well... not a whole lot.

THE UGLY:

1) No Mention of Progression. "Strength Training" used to be called "Progressive Strength Training." Essential to the inaugural strength trainer's program was that Milo was shouldering a calf that was growing a little bit each day. No growth in the cow would have meant no growth in Milo's muscles. And it's really the same in the realm of 'cardio' as well. You've got to keep trying to get better: a little stronger or faster, maybe, but perhaps just slightly tighter form, a little more volume... heck, maybe even just ten minutes watering the lawn on an off day, or stretching for a couple of minutes when you get up in the morning. Something new, something different, something just a little harder is enough. And maybe you can't swing it every day. But in the big-picture sense, trying to progress should be part of the equation.

Why is progression so essential? Because 'stasis' is the primrose path to 'backsliding.' Here's a slightly off-topic analogy: there's a debate raging at the moment about the value of working to failure -- i.e., temporary exhaustion -- when training with weights. Prudent trainers are starting to advise against it, and although the science behind the anti-failure argument seems sound, I'd counter that counseling trainees not to work to failure is tantamount to telling them not to push themselves. So few people even approach muscular failure in the gym that warning them against it is like telling a pothead community college dropout not to spend too much time on his homework.

The same applies here: by failing to emphasize progression, the ACSM and AHA are essentially granting permission for exercisers to stop trying -- or even get worse.

2) Vague Language. Great that the word "vigorous" is in there. But what does it mean, exactly? We don't know, because there's no indication, not even so much as a single, measly reference to the Borg RPE scale, as to what constitutes 'vigorous.' It's just not specific enough.

Moving into stickler territory here, the term 'cardio' is fast approaching five-minutes-ago status, as it implies that certain forms of exercise -- or activity, or even complete catatonia -- don't require a boatload of support from the cardiovascular system. The distinction between strength work and cardio work is kind of blurry anyway: as I've said before, I can put a barbell in your hand and get you to huff and puff like you've just been doing wind sprints, or I can run you up a hill with everything you've got and get your thighs burning like you've just been doing squats. For the time being, let's refer to running, biking, swimming and the like as 'energy systems' training until someone comes up with a more elegant term. "Cardio" is misleading.

3) Combining Moderate "Cardio" Activity with Strength Training. This final "ugly" observation probably only applies to people who are serious about training and seeking significant improvements in strength or muscle mass, but it's worth noting that doing these two training methods concurrently usually leads to a compromise in strength training gains. That is to say: if you do intense strength training for an hour 2-3 times a week and a 45-minute jog on three other days of the week, you wouldn't get as strong or build as much muscle as you would if you were only doing exclusively strength training. This "interference effect" has been pretty extensively studied, so it's rather odd that the ASCM would recommend exercising in this less-than efficient manner. The solution is a carefully laid out periodization plan, but I suspect that the ASCM and the AHA just didn't want to go there for fear of the yawns and groans of boredom that would result. Funny, that's never deterred me...

So, to sum up my entirely subjective, unscientific rundown of these new suggestions: some genuine progress, some questionable calls, and a few things I would personally consider missteps in wording that another trainer might well quibble with. Overall, though, I'd have to say that as far as exercise parameters for the every man, woman, and child in the known universe go, these are pretty good, and they're certainly leaps and bounds beyond what we've had in the past.

Most of the criticisms I have for the program are tweaks, anyway: caveats and qualifications that would be more or less lost on an exercise-hater just looking for hard-and-fast rules on how to stave off early heart failure. Which is to say, the target audience for this sort of information: people who are, unaccountably, less fascinated by the minutia of exercise science than I am.

What a bunch of weirdos. Geez.

Your own comments on the ACSM/AHA report are welcome below. What do these suggestions mean to you? Do they seem excessive, overly cautious, confusing, contradictory? Write in and let me know what you think. Everybody's doing it.

Andrew

DF Tip #25: A Little Thing Called "Science"

So there's this new thing called "science" that has a lot of people talking these days and I thought I'd spend a tip talking about it, just because, gosh, I'm thinking it might have some applicability to the fitness world.

As a personal trainer I am compelled to renew my certification every couple of years by attending continuing education classes. These classes usually take the drab, drone-y form of a remedial driving class: the lecturer either tells you things you've known for decades, or speaks with great vehemence about very questionable things, then concludes by asking you to pony up $49.99 for the Abdomulator. Not my favorite way to pass a weekend.

So a few weeks back, faced with a choice between acquiring some continuing ed. credits or getting pounded with a myofascial foam pad by the Internal Affairs Division of Personal Trainers, I attended a seminar held by a chap called Alan Aragon. Whatever the topic of discussion, I was at least intrigued at the prospect of seeing a fitness presentation led by a fire-breathing dragon.

Aragon turned out to be far more interesting: his seminar was titled "Girth Control: The Science of Fat Loss & Muscle Gain," and in about 30 seconds I could tell that this guy was no Internet-guru quack, a type I've come down on pretty heavily in the past. Nope, Aragon's one smart cookie, and lucky for anyone he works with, he's also something that we don't see a lot of in the fitness world: a skeptic.

If you've even skimmed a fitness book, sat through a late-night infomercial on weight loss, or glanced at an ad for any muscle gain powder or drink or system or piece of equipment, you'll know that the fitness world is chock-full of whackos whose zeal is almost religious: you've got your gurus, your crazy, hopped-up evangelist types like Bill Phillips, your sacraments in the form of protein powders and Omega-3 supplements, your holy scriptures with titles like Fitness is Religion and Body By God. We strap ourselves into medieval exercise machines and endure whatever pain and suffering they can mete out. Fat is the devil we must exorcise and scorch away; muscle is the shining Holy Grail, pursued with ever-redoubling conviction and fervor. Hallelujah! Praise the lats!

Amidst all the speaking in tongues, Alan Aragon is a fitness agnostic. He's -- what the hell, let’s just belabor the hell out of this analogy, shall we? -- he’s Galileo, insisting that the Catholic Church cede to the empirical evidence and admit that the Earth circles the sun.

Let's just hope that he never recants.

Basically, he's an advocate of applying this "science" thing in pursuit of optimal dieting and exercise techniques. So what's so novel about that?

Well, shockingly, the deluge of fitness advice that is regularly dumped on the public is almost never subjected to much scientific scrutiny. Rather like our current administration, fitness folks tend to just repeat things until everyone slowly decides that they must be true. And I'll admit that in the past I've been guilty of jumping on the trendy train, just because, well, I'm human too, and I get excited about new fitness information just like everyone else.

Here's a great example: remember how we grew up thinking that you should drink 8-10 glasses of water a day? We must have heard that a hundred times growing up. Well, you know how many studies to prove that 8-10 glasses a day was optimal for most people?

Zero. As you've probably heard by now, the 8-10 glasses of water a day thing was pretty much pulled out of thin air by a guy with a few letters after his name. He meant well -- someone asked him how much water he thought people should drink and he gave a good-faith estimate based on his experience -- but he never meant for us to parrot him for decades, his ball-park estimate posted on school-nurses' walls nationwide and reprinted in every issue of SELF since Cheryl Tiegs graced its cover.

Remember the scene in Modern Times when Charlie Chapin finishes a long day of tightening lug nuts on an assembly line, and reels around with the lug-nut-tightening twitches, finally assaulting a poor woman with strategically-placed buttons on the front of her jacket? As consumers of fitness advice, we're a little like that. We hear that antioxidants and Omega-3 fats are good for us and we start swilling multivitamins by the fistful and flaxseed oil by the gallon. Meantime, we never bother to read the studies showing, rather convincingly, that too much of some antioxidants can cause stomach problems and too much Omega-3 fat can compromise immune functioning.

Thank god for guys like Alan Aragon: he's out there poring over studies, sifting through them for faults, and revising recommendations as necessary. Aragon reads the fine print, and it usually says, in so many words, "The guys who did this study also stand to profit handsomely from its results." The low-carb industry has lost a little steam lately, but you can bet there are a few dozen aspiring Atkins heirs out there scrambling to get a headline in Men's Health about how women are chemically more drawn to men on low-carb diets than their flour-stuffed brethren.

It's ironic -- and no surprise -- that I hadn't heard of Aragon before this seminar. As he pointed out in his talk, a book with "moderation" in the title most likely won't find its way to the bestseller list. No, we like our fitness tips extreme, absolute and universally applicable. Cut fat to lose weight. Cut carbs to lose weight. Eggs are bad. Eggs are the perfect food. Eat only vegetables. Eat only raw foods. Eat only grapefruits. Eat only meats. Eat no meats. Aerobic exercise is the second coming. Aerobic exercise is the scourge of the devil.

With so much money to be made in the fitness industry, it's no wonder there are so many crackpots and snake-oil charlatans claiming to have found the Holy Grail. And some of the manufacturers of these products also happen to publish popular magazines covering the topic of fitness, and if an article in the magazine happens to cover a popular athlete and that athlete happens to use a given product also manufactured by the magazine's publisher, well, I'm no economist, but I'm sensing something of a threat to perfect and absolute journalistic objectivity here.

The antidote? Well, in a word, science. Guys like Alan Aragon make a living sifting through the detritus for useful nuggets of dietary advice, and have a wealth of expertise and experience and to help them do it. But everyone -- myself included -- can be a little more on their guard about blindly following the latest trends, and about taking every blurb on diet and fitness at face value. We can find out the source of the studies that fitness articles cite as evidence for their claims. Using the internet, we can often find the studies themselves and make up our minds for ourselves: does this study really prove what they say it proves? What might they have missed? What biases might be in play? Basically, we don't need to be fitness lemmings, following the carb-deprived crowd right over the cliff.

That was the most useful little nugget I got out of that weekend seminar. Think for yourself. Resist extremism. Use common sense. Moderation is key.

And, this "science" thing is useful.

Thanks, Alan.

Andrew