I love research that makes exercise more accessible to everyone. An article published by the American College of Sports Medicine^[1] does just that. Researchers reviewed the literature on high-intensity circuit training and designed a circuit of bodyweight exercises that can be performed anywhere in a little less than eight minutes.

The exercises in the circuit are performed continuously at high intensity for 30 seconds each, with 10 seconds of rest and transition between exercises. The 12 exercises in the circuit are:

1. Jumping Jacks

2. Wall Sit

3. Push-Ups

4. Crunches

5. Step-Ups

6. Squats

7. Dips

8. Planks

9. Running in place

10. Lunges

11. Push-Ups with Rotation

12. Side plank

While this short circuit isn’t going to turn anyone into an elite athlete, it could help break down barriers to exercise for those who won’t make time to get into the gym. It could also be a great option for athletes who travel. Athletes needing even more of a challenge can repeat the circuit multiple times.

High-intensity circuits also depend on the athlete working at high intensity. This is tough for people who are deconditioned or new to exercise. I often read mainstream articles, like this one from the New York Times, that trumpet the fact you can get a complete workout in just a handful of minutes.

I do not believe most of these authors truly understand the demands of working at a very high intensity for 4-7 minutes. It is neither comfortable nor enjoyable, yet they act as if a few minutes of high-intensity work is far preferable to 20 minutes on a treadmill.

I am reminded of a quote from The Princess Bride applied to the phrase ‘high intensity’: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

But for the right audience at the right time, this could be a useful circuit for maintaining your fitness while on vacation or getting started exercising with limited time and budget. Try it out and let us know what you think!

References

1. Brett Klika and Chris Jordan. High-Intensity Circuit Training Using Body Weight: Maximum Results with Minimal Investment. ACSM’S Health & Fitness Journal: May/June 2013 – Volume 17 – Issue 3 – p 8–13. doi: 10.1249/FIT.0b013e31828cb1e8

The post The 8-Minute Bodyweight Circuit: Does It Actually Work? appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

Researchers tested 30 subjects by videoing their squats. The subjects performed unweighted squats and then added loads of 25% and 50% body weight. First, the subjects squatted unrestricted, allowing their knees to move naturally. Then they squatted while restricting their knees from moving beyond their toes. Researchers compared the kinematics of both styles and formed some interesting conclusions.

Related: The Best Leg Workouts

Restricting forward movement of the knees resulted in undesired movement of the spine. During the restricted squat, the thoracic spine, lumbar spine, and sacrum all articulated with each other much more than in the unrestricted squat. Put simply, subjects started flexing their spines in weird ways that are not safe for a loaded squat. The unrestricted squat showed much less spinal movement. As subjects were allowed to move their knees beyond their toes, the spine stayed more neutral with the torso more upright.

This study forces the question, “How should we squat?” Powerlifters squat with a low bar technique and vertical shins, similar to the restricted squat tested in the study. This technique invokes more of the posterior chain and allows powerlifters to squat the heaviest loads possible. Weightlifters squat with a high bar technique and vertical torso, similar to the unrestricted squat tested above. This allows them to train the squat in a way that carries over to the snatch and clean. The powerlifting technique accepts more shear forces on the spine. The weightlifting technique accepts more shear forces on the knee. Which one is correct?

At my CrossFit affiliate, we teach the unloaded squat with the restricted knee technique, similar to the powerlifting squat. Most new athletes do not know how to utilize their posterior chain or hinge at the hips, and this technique reinforces both of those valuable patterns. Many new athletes also lack the ankle flexibility necessary to squat with knees forward. As athletes develop in strength and flexibility, we introduce them to the high bar squat. Competitive athletes that start to specialize in weightlifting eventually move away from the low bar squat completely.

So the “right” way to squat is really more subjective than it seems. Squat in a way that is safe for your level of strength and flexibility, and in a way that supports your training goals.

References

1. Renate List, et. al. “Kinematics of the Trunk and the Lower Extremities During Restricted and Unrestricted Squats.” Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: June 2013 – Volume 27 – Issue 6 – p 1529-1538. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182736034.

The post Should You Squat With Your Knees Forward? appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

So if power is your goal, how do you train for it? A group of researchers recently studied this question as it relates to push press and jump squats. They wanted to find out the percentage of 1RM that maximizes power output during training. They recruited seventeen men, most in their twenties, who trained regularly. Each man was measured for 1RM in push press and back squat. Then each man was asked to perform a series of push press and jump squats. He started at ten percent of 1RM and worked all the way up to ninety percent, performing a double each time. Researchers measured the power output of the lifts using a force plate that the men stood on while lifting.

The researchers found that push presses done at 65% 1RM produced the most average power. Jump squats showed a different result. They produced the most average power when loaded with about forty percent of 1RM back squat. This is quite a difference, but not surprising given the inherent difference between the exercises. A loaded squat is almost a full body exercise, which allows you to use a large load and move the load a large distance. The push press is a more isolated exercise, moving a smaller load for a smaller distance. Therefore, it’s reasonable that push press can be trained with a higher percentage of 1RM and still sustain high power output.

So what does this mean for your training? If you’re out to develop power in these exercises, consider programming some work at the loads specified above. Try performing the exercise for as many reps as possible in fifteen seconds. Then rest 45 seconds and do it again. Do this for five working sets. In five minutes you’ll be done with the exercise, and you can easily track your progress each week by how many reps you complete. Simple and effective.

References

1. Jason Lake, et al. “Power and impulse applied during push press exercise,” Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. POST ACCEPTANCE, 26 February 2014. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000438

The post Power Production in the Push Press and Squat Jump appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

A group of researchers tackled this problem in the latest issue of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. They asked, “What is the best way to rest between sprints during training to ensure maximum performance?” Some studies have shown that passive rest, or not moving during rest periods, is superior. Others have shown that active rest, which is when an athlete maintains motion at a very slow and easy rate, is superior. The research team devised a study to test whether the length of the rest interval affected the best way to rest.

The researchers recruited ten male recreational athletes to study. The men were generally in their mid- to late twenties and had spent about seven years in their respective sports. The men were asked to perform a thirty-second sprint on a stationary bike. The researchers tested four different conditions:

• 45 seconds rest with passive recovery
• 45 seconds rest with active recovery
• 180 seconds rest with passive recovery
• 180 seconds rest with active recovery

The results were surprising. The researchers found that the optimal mode of recovery (active or passive) depends on the length of the rest interval. In the case of 45-second rest intervals, passive recovery was the winner. The sprinters maintained higher peak power, especially in the early sprints, with passive rest. In the case of 180-second rest intervals, active recovery was the winner. In this case, the cyclists stayed on the bicycle and kept moving the pedals at a slow pace. This paid off with higher power outputs, especially during the later sprints.

Why this difference? Well, we don’t know exactly. The researchers theorized that active recovery may interfere with the first stage of phosphocreatine regeneration. This would explain why passive recovery was beneficial for short rest intervals. Active recovery does a better job of removing cellular waste products like hydrogen ions. This is primarily accomplished through greater blood flow caused by the motion of active recovery. The sum total of this effect provided an advantage for active recovery during the longer, 180-second rest intervals.

So next time you’re designing a program that involves sprint training, consider whether active or passive recovery is optimal. Better performance in training means better performance on the field, so it could be the difference between making a big play or chalking up a loss.

References

1. James Brown and Mark Glaister. The Interactive Effects of Recovery Mode and Duration on Subsequent Repeated Sprint Performance. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. March 2014 – Volume 28 – Issue 3 – p 651–660. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182a1fe28

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

The post The Relation Between Rest Interval Mode and Duration in Sprint Training appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

Each child in the study was eight or nine years old and had never performed any training outside his sport. The researchers wanted to determine if strength and conditioning training would improve the performance of these young athletes. They designed a 26-week training program layered on top of the players’ existing soccer-specific training. They broke the players into two groups: a control group of athletes who performed their usual soccer-specific training, and a test group of kids who added strength and conditioning training to their soccer training. The researchers tested each child before, during, and after the program to compare results.

The strength and conditioning program used in the test was very simple. Children trained twice a week for thirty minutes per session. The session involved quarter-squats, jumps, weighted jumps, and sprinting. At the end of the 26 weeks, researchers compared the control group to the strength and conditioning group.

The strength and conditioning group improved in jump height, endurance, and flexibility, while the control group that only played soccer actually became worse in all those measures. Curiously, both groups displayed worse fifteen-meter sprints than before the research. Researchers theorize this might have been due to the changes in height and proportions the children encountered over the course of the test. Nine-year-old children grow quite a bit in half a year, and their changes in proportions seem to have made their sprint times worse, regardless of how they trained.

This research adds to the myriad other studies showing that kids can perform strength and conditioning training just as safely and effectively as adults. Strength and conditioning training is also much safer than traditional youth sports. Rates of injury per 1,000 hours of training are much lower for weight training than sports like soccer. If that’s surprising, run through a quick thought experiment with me. A kid in a gym being supervised by a strength and conditioning professional is well controlled. The professional can precisely monitor loads, reps, and technique. The professional can tailor the training to the kid’s current ability. Now imagine two children running full-speed towards each other on a soccer or football field. When they collide, that is an inherently uncontrollable event with unpredictable consequences. Which carries the higher risk, strength training or sports?

I don’t want to dissuade you from involving your child in sports. I want to show you that strength training is much safer than youth soccer, the darling activity for the kids of thirty-something moms everywhere. So why wouldn’t you want your child to be involved in strength training?

References

1. Carlos Ferrete, et al. Effect of Strength and High-Intensity Training on Jumping, Sprinting, and Intermittent Endurance Performance in Prepubertal Soccer Players. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. February 2014 – Volume 28 – Issue 2 – p 413–422. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31829b2222

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

The post Kids Who Lift Weights Are Better at Soccer appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

The research team recruited fifteen well trained female rugby players and measured their max front squats. Then the ladies were put through a series of tests using drop jumps. Researchers measured many different qualities of the drop jump, but focused particularly on the jump height.

The researchers used the front squat results to divide the women into a low strength group and a high strength group, depending on their strength-to-bodyweight ratios. Women from the high strength group displayed significantly better performance on the drop jumps. They jumped significantly higher, especially at higher drop heights. At the highest drop heights the high strength group was jumping a full two inches higher than the low strength group.

You may be asking, “So what? The stronger women jumped higher. Big surprise.” But the lesson learned is that leg strength plays a large role not only in plyometric performance, but in tolerating plyometric work. Performance in the low strength group declined rapidly as drop heights increased, while the high strength group was able to maintain about the same jumping height across all drops.

So if you want to improve plyometric performance, then you can’t ignore leg strength. While plyometric work may seem like a bodyweight exercise, and therefore the opposite of moving a barbell, your ability to move a barbell with your legs may limit your plyometric performance.

This study also demonstrates the importance of lower body strength training for athletes. A football player jumps to catch the ball, lands, and then takes off in a different direction – that’s a lot like a drop jump. A basketball player jumps repeatedly to fight for a rebound – that’s a lot like a drop jump. A CrossFit athlete performs rebounding box jumps in competition – that’s a lot like a drop jump. Each of these athletes must excel at jumping, but each must also understand that leg strength is as critical to his success as plyometrics. The two work hand in hand.

References

1. Matthew Barr and Volker Nolte. The Importance of Maximal Leg Strength for Female Athletes When Performing Drop Jumps. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. February 2014 – Volume 28 – Issue 2 – p 373–380. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31829999af

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

The post The Role of Leg Strength in Plyometrics appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

Researchers in Tunisia decided to find the most effective means of psyching up. They tested two well-established methods. The first, imagery, involves visualizing yourself performing the task to the best of your ability. The next, arousal, involves simply getting as excited as possible before starting the task. The researchers tested both of these methods against two control scenarios.

To perform the test, researchers recruited sixteen experienced male sprinters. Each sprinter performed a maximal thirty-meter sprint followed by a rest interval. The researchers chose short sprints because in sports acceleration is generally more valuable than speed. During the rest interval, the sprinter was coached to use one of the above mental techniques, or a control method where he was required to count backwards from 1,000 in increments of seven. No, I’m not joking. I think I’d rather just run another sprint. Another interesting fact: the sprinters were all required to eat the same breakfast. Breakfast was one cake, a glass of orange juice, and water. I hope they enjoyed their cake.

When the data was analyzed, the researchers found that visualization was the clearly superior technique. When athletes used imagery during their rest intervals they consistently reduced their sprint times. Out of the sixteen sprinters, fourteen reduced their sprint times using imagery. Arousal worked as well, but not much better than the control conditions, so imagery was the clear winner.

Imagery is easy to use. Before attempting a task, just visualize yourself performing the task and being successful. This could mean visualizing a lift being made, a fast sprint, or anything else you attempt. Before my athletes attempt record lifts, I often coach them to, “See it happening. Visualize success.” I think many of my athletes have used imagery in this way to achieve new personal records.

So next time you’re attempting a difficult task, try using imagery to improve your performance. Even if you’re accustomed to using arousal, or otherwise getting excited before a lift, try imagery for a change. Sixteen Tunisian sprinters can’t be wrong.

References

1. Sarra Hammoudi-Nassib, et al. “Effects of psyching-up on sprint performance.” Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: POST ACCEPTANCE, 28 January 2014. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000373

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

The post See It Happen to Make It Happen: How Visualization Makes Athletes More Successful appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

Researchers recruited twelve male cyclists. The cyclists were put through two forty-kilometer cycling courses. One course was performed indoors. The other course was performed outdoors on a fairly flat trail. Each cyclist used his personal bike, which was outfitted with an ergometer.

So how did the outdoor trials compare with the indoor trials? The difference was astonishing. Every single participant finished the outdoor trial faster. The average time to complete the indoor trial was 96 minutes, compared to just 83 minutes for the outdoor trial. A thirteen-minute difference on a ninety-minute workout is pretty amazing.

Power output was an average of thirty percent higher during the outdoor trials. Participants registered a higher heart rate during the outdoor trial, but also a lower skin temperature. The cooling effect of oncoming air during the outdoor ride was thought to account for the lower skin temperature, because core temperatures were roughly the same for the indoor and outdoor trials. Perceived exertion was also about the same, regardless of location.

So participants felt about the same during the outdoor trial, yet performed significantly better. It looks like outdoor training could result in better long-term adaptations. This isn’t the first study to reach such a conclusion. A previous study from Extreme Physiology and Medicine reported a similar result. When runners exercised outdoors they ran faster and perceived the run to be easier than a comparable run indoors. Outdoor exercise lasting just five minutes or more was also shown to substantially benefit mood.

Looks like this is another slam dunk for outdoor exercise. By taking the gym outdoors you’ll work harder, yet feel better. Even if you can’t do your entire workout outside, do what you can. Just five minutes can make a difference. Sometimes at my gym we will open the roll-up doors so we can see the outdoors, even if we’re lifting inside. Does it make a difference? I don’t know, but on a nice day, it can’t hurt.

References

1. Molly Mieras, et al. Physiological and Psychological Responses to Outdoor vs. Laboratory Cycling. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research: POST ACCEPTANCE, 27 January 2014. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000384

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

The post Another Slam Dunk for Outdoor Exercise appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

“Of course not!” said a recent study in PLOS One. Researchers examined data from a large study in Toronto that collected data from almost 1,500 participants, who recorded their dietary habits in detail. Then the researchers compared participants’ habits to their blood type and general markers of health, like cholesterol and blood pressure. Would those who ate right for their blood type have better health than those who did not? Not a chance.

But here’s the best part. Those who ate according to the type A, type AB, or type O diet all had better health markers – it just didn’t matter whether their diets were matched to their actual blood types. Anyone who ate the type A or AB diet showed lower blood pressure and lower triglycerides. Type A dieters even had a smaller waist. Anyone who ate the type O diet showed lower triglycerides.

How can this be? Because each of the blood type diets contains some recommendation for either increased lean meat or vegetables. And that’s going to improve your health regardless of your blood type. So while matching your diet to your blood type is a futile exercise, eating according to any of the recommended blood type diets can actually result in positive progress.

I’m not sure why anyone ever believed that different blood types have different dietary needs. I suspect it’s rooted in the idea that we are all special, when in fact, we are not. I know you probably feel like you have a unique situation that has never been faced by anyone else. Your blood type is AB negative. You don’t like the taste of fish. And your son, Faustian, must be driven to soccer practice three times per week on a route that passes Taco Bell. Guess what? Nature doesn’t care. You’re just a homo sapien. Your genes are programmed to respond to your every decision about diet and lifestyle, and nothing gets you a free pass from the consequences. We aren’t a society of special snowflakes. We are a society of people who are remarkably similar in needs. The sooner we all accept this, the better off we’ll be.

References

1. Jingzhou Wang, et al. ABO Genotype, ‘Blood-Type’ Diet and Cardiometabolic Risk Factors. PLOS One. Published: January 15, 2014. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084749

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

The post Blood Type Diet Debunked appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

Researchers examined data from a long-term study of nurses in the United States. The study followed almost 100,000 female nurses for eight years. The women recorded their daily activities in great detail, including any exercise they did. The results show that any type of resistance exercise decreased the likelihood of developing diabetes.

The researchers defined resistance exercise very loosely. The way this study was conducted, any type of muscle-strengthening routine that wasn’t aerobic exercise was counted as resistance exercise. That means yoga, pilates, bodybuilding, strength training, weightlifting, and CrossFit were all classified under the same category. That’s great news, because it means the resistance exercise necessary to prevent diabetes can come from almost any activity.

Before you get out the pitchforks, remember that we’re talking about exercise as a goal to prevent disease. Nobody is saying that all those activities will achieve the same physical results. But it appears they could all be equally effective in simply preventing diabetes.

The study also revealed that more resistance exercise resulted in less risk of diabetes, but the big drop in risk came after just 1.5 hours per week. So a person who performs weight training for seven hours per week is more protected than someone training for only 1.5 hours per week, but not by much. The person who exercises just for disease prevention gets much more bang for her buck from about ninety minutes of resistance training.

The study also showed that the ultimate protection came from both aerobic exercise and resistance training combined. So programs that involve both types of training might be most effective. Interestingly, the most risk reduction from aerobic exercise alone came after 2.5 hours per week.

So what do we learn from this study? First, resistance training in any form helps prevent diabetes. Second, the best protection comes from combining resistance training with aerobic exercise. So when someone asks you about the best way to exercise for general health, don’t make them believe there is only one way that works, to the exclusion of all others. This study shows that general health and disease prevention can be achieved with a variety of different programs. The best program appears to be the one that will stick.

References

1. Anders Grontved, et al. Muscle-Strengthening and Conditioning Activities and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Prospective Study in Two Cohorts of US Women. PLOS Medicine. Published: January 14, 2014. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001587

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

The post Prevent Type 2 Diabetes With Resistance Exercise appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

But what if fast food consumption isn’t the full story? What if the rest of our diet bears more of the blame for obesity than fast food? A recent study from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found exactly that. Researchers studied over 4,000 children in the United States from ages two to eighteen years. They found some surprising results.

First, only half of the children consumed fast food. That’s actually less than I expected. Next, of that fifty percent who consumed fast food, about forty percent got very little of their daily nutrition from fast food and about ten percent got a lot of their daily energy from fast food. That feels about right. That means about one-in-ten children eats mostly fast food every day. I can buy that. Finally, and most notably, fast food consumption itself was not clearly associated with obesity. However, the remainder of the child’s diet was associated with obesity. Now that sounds like crazy talk – but it’s not.

Those who did consume fast food were much more likely to eat a traditional Western diet outside the fast food restaurant. The Western diet consists of lots of refined grains, sugars, processed meat, and refined vegetable oils. This traditional Western diet may be more to blame for obesity in children than the devil and his golden arches.

However, those who shunned fast food were found to eat a more prudent diet that included more fruits, vegetables, and lean meats. The study isn’t conclusive, but it seems that a prudent diet and occasional trips to Burger King may trump a standard Western diet that has never cracked the box on a Whopper. To me, this research reinforces the fact that every single decision counts in your nutrition. You can’t follow any one blanket rule, throw caution to the wind everywhere else, and expect great results. Nutrition is a big, nebulous, slippery jellyfish greased with coconut oil. It’s difficult to get your arms around it, and it doesn’t easily fit into any nice, neat little box.

The only way to ensure results is to educate yourself and make consistently smart decisions every single day. Not sometimes – every single day. But if, on occasion, one of those decisions involves Taco Bell, your progress won’t be wrecked as long as the remainder of your diet stays on track.

References

1. JM Poti, et al. The association of fast food consumption with poor dietary outcomes and obesity among children: is it the fast food or the remainder of the diet? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2014 Jan;99(1):162-71. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.071928. Epub 2013 Oct 23.

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

The post Fast Food Is Only Part of the Picture appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

Have you heard that baking soda, also known as sodium bicarbonate, can enhance your athletic performance? It’s true, according to a recent study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Sprinting and other anaerobic activity make your blood more acidic. Baking soda is strongly alkaline, so in theory it can help keep your body’s pH closer to neutral, which may enhance your ability to buffer lactic acid.

Researchers wanted to test the effectiveness of baking sodaand beta-alanine independently as aids to sprinting. The researchers also thought they might discover that combining the two supplements would form a super-supplement that worked better than either substance alone.

The researchers recruited 24 men who played competitive soccer, field hockey, or Australian football. The men were put through a series of twenty meter sprints and rest intervals that simulated the demands of their sports. Later each man was given one of four different supplements: baking soda, beta-alanine, both baking soda and beta-alanine, or a sugar pill and a swift pat on the bum. The athletes then repeated the sprint test and compared times to their baseline.

Which supplement reigned supreme? Baking soda. Athletes who ingested baking soda about an hour prior to sprinting turned in twenty meter times that were consistently faster than baseline. In the last set of sprints, as fatigue set it, the baking soda group rallied to perform each sprint more than 0.1 seconds faster than baseline.

How did the other groups fare? The beta-alanine group showed almost no difference at all. The group that took both baking soda and beta-alanine showed small improvement, but not as much as the baking soda group. This appears to indicate that adding beta-alanine to the mix actually hurt performance. Finally, the placebo group actually didn’t fare too badly. By the numbers, they technically performed better than the beta-alanine group. I suppose that was a very special sugar pill and pat on the bum.

It looks like baking soda may work pretty well as a sports supplement. These athletes took it about an hour prior to performance at a dose of 0.3 grams per kilogram of bodyweight. That means the dose ranges from fifteen grams for a small woman to thirty or more grams for a large man.

The use of baking soda as a sports supplement also has much supporting research from other studies, so this just adds to the evidence. However, a word of caution: supplementing with baking soda is widely reported to cause explosive diarrhea. It’s supposedly snow white in color, which is kind of cool, but still a major consideration.

References

1. Kagan Ducker, et al. Effect of Beta Alanine and Sodium Bicarbonate Supplementation on Repeated-Sprint Performance. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. December 2013 – Volume 27 – Issue 12 – p 3450–3460. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31828fd310

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock.

The post Supplement Face-Off: Baking Soda Versus Beta-Alanine appeared first on Breaking Muscle.