The other day I received a message from a new strength client asking about testing strength since my style of programming rarely, if ever, calls for one rep maxes. He was quite confused as to how I could guarantee he was getting stronger if he didn't test his maximal strength every few weeks. As a newer lifter, he was seeing quick gains in strength as his body adapted and he wanted the undeniable feedback of pushing a one rep max every few weeks. I understood his concerns because I made the same mistakes before I knew any better, before I really understood Personal Records (PR's). There's a secret in strength training that isn't very secret; strength doesn't come from a one rep max. Strength comes from the accumulation of our efforts and there are many ways to demonstrate the gains we make.
I understand the desire to say "I squat xxx" or "I bench yyy" and I know the high you get from nailing a new PR, limiting progress with the idea that increases in maximal strength progress comes only from a one rep max is erroneous thinking. Simply, one rep max tests take a lot out of the body, can be dangerous without proper spotters, and can actually hinder progress if done too often. At minimum, I have 12 weeks of training before scheduling a test week. If I can move a weight faster, if I can do more reps, if the weight feels lighter, or if I can recover faster, I have demonstrated increased strength expect some impact in my 1 RM as well. More and more people are catching on to the idea that a PR is a PR, whether it's a 5 RM, a 3 RM, or a 1 RM. Strength isn't just one all out effort, but is defined by how we use it. Think of a mover; they may not have a tremendous squat max, but they can run up and down stairs with furniture all day long. Or consider a warehouse employee that is shifting, lifting, and moving boxes eight hours a day. We would all agree they are strong, but their 1 RM means nothing.
Instead of programming one rep max tests during cycles, I use two elements to measure progress and strength gains with my clients and myself. The first element is the repetition max. The second element is an indicator lift. The combination of rep maxes and indicator lifts provides valuable information about your training, your progress, and ultimately, your strength. Because both of these occur over time, a good workout log is essential in recognizing the changes.
Repetition Maxes - By now, most people understand rep maxes. Briefly, a rep max can be either the most weight you can do for a set number of reps (2, 3, 5, etc.) or it can be a weight done as many times as possible. The first option is primarily used by self-regulating programs that allow you to push as hard as you can for that training session as long as you don't miss. The second option is seen in programs like Jim Wendler's 5/3/1 series. Either version can indicate strength increases. Think about it for a minute; if you benched 225 pounds for 6 and then a month later later hit 225 pounds for 8, you got stronger! Or maybe you're doing 3 sets of 5 and last month you did it with 315 but this month you just did it with 340. You'd agree you got stronger, wouldn't you? And if you want to relate back to a one rep max, it can be done. With repetition maxes of eight or fewer, we can estimate our 1 RM using a simple formula: weight x reps x .0333 + weight. Example: 225 x 5 x .0333 + 225 estimates a 265 pound max.
Indicator Lifts - These take some experience to identify, but everybody has them for each major lift. An indicator lift is another lift that correlates to your "tested" movement. Sometimes they are trained in place of the actual lift or they are done as the first assistance lift. The indicator lift uses many of the same muscles as the main lift, which is why the two are related. For me, when my Incline Bench increases, so does my Flat Bench. For some, it may be Front Squat indicating Squat increase. Whether you are aware of it or not, we all have them. This is where the workout log is so important. The longer you have been training, the easier they are to find. Go back and look at how you were training when you were getting stronger. Find the assistance lift that you were doing that also got stronger. That's your indicator. If you're newer to lifting, this may be harder, but it certainly is possible as long as you keep records of everything.
So if you find yourself always testing your one rep max and never making progress, maybe it's time to step back from test mode and start looking at other PR's using the rep max and indicator lift method of analyzing your strength gains. Your body will thank you for it and I'm willing to bet that you will see more from it in the long run.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Thursday, June 25, 2015
The 1,200 Calorie Myth
The other day I encountered another poor soul led to believe that she must eat 1,200 calories per day in order to lose weight. After explaining why she was incorrect and how she'd been misled by the internet, I decided it was time to see how many cases actually line up with 1,200 calorie diets. Before I dive into the math behind this, I freely admit there are exceptions to every rule in fitness. The odds of someone being one of the exceptions is very small.
Weight loss can be simplified to a single statement, "eat fewer calories than you burn." Whether you perform exercise to raise your caloric burn level or you reduce your intake, weight loss occurs at a deficit. The bad news is that too big of a deficit results in muscle loss, hormonal damage, and metabolic slowdown. The end result is making weight loss harder. There are always exceptions in health and fitness, but chances are, needing 1,200 calories to lose weight isn't because of their body, but because of what they have done to their body.
It is suggested that the caloric deficit not exceed 500 calories below maintenance. Under the assumption that one must eat 1,200 calories to lose weight, that would mean the number of calories needed for maintenance is 1,200 + 500 = 1,700. With the simple multipliers used to convert RMR into TDEE, we can determine the corresponding RMR's. The following table displays the five measures of activity along with the corresponding RMR that matches a TDEE of 1,700.
This simple analysis gives us two cases where 1,200 calories is below RMR. This is exquisitely bad over a long period of time as it is typically not sustainable, slows metabolism, slows growth and repair of tissue, and negatively effects hormone levels. The remaining three demonstrate an RMR highly unlikely to be found by anybody working out at the required level to reach a TDEE of 1,700.
In order to test large amounts of hypothetical data, I created a program to calculate RMR and BMI based on a set of conditions. The program was run with the following limitations:
Age: 18 - 64
Height: 4'11" - 6'0"
Weight: 103 -250 pounds
The test program reported no instances of a sub 1000 calorie RMR that would not be considered "Underweight." Further, of the 97,384 potential combinations based on the restrictions, there are 8% (7,703) cases of RMR between 1,000 and 1,200, with approximately 2% having a BMI classified as "Overweight" and .05% considered "Obese." Of those 2,030 cases, all of them are under 5'4" and older than 34 with the "Obese" starting at age 54. The lightest bodyweight meeting these qualifications is 129 pounds for a 4'11", 34 year old ranging up to a 146 pound, 5'4", 64 year old. If we look at RMR from each factor, RMR decreases with age and increases with weight. As weight typically increases with height, it can be seen that as height increases, so does RMR.
Again, the chances that the average female looking to lose weight falls into "1,200 calorie diet" are very slim.
As the calculations found, there are some exceptions to the "1,200 calories is not for you" rule, but chances are you aren't one of them. One exception is the person that has already damaged their metabolism by chronically under-eating. This metabolic slowdown may result in needing to eat 1,200 calories, but through proper diet, this can be reversed back to a more sustainable level. Another exception would be someone on a prescription medicine that impairs metabolic rate. The only other exception I will mention is under the direct care of a medical professional and they will have very specific reasons and guidelines for using the 1,200 calorie diet.
Now that we know our minimum (RMR) and maintenance (TDEE), we can create our deficit. The deficit should not force you below your RMR and should be no more than 500 calories below TDEE. I'm willing to bet fewer than five people reading this will calculate 1,200 calories as an appropriate deficit and remain above their RMR. In a perfect world, we would increase the space between our RMR and our TDEE by increasing activity, allowing us to lose weight while eating the most calories possible.
Again, if we eat too far below our TDEE, we risk slowing our metabolism, making it harder to lose weight. When this happens, the standard response is either a) eat less or b) be more active. Both options create a bigger deficit forcing the body to slow metabolism further. Remember, the human body has learned to survive over thousands of years and it will compensate to survive.
Weight loss can be simplified to a single statement, "eat fewer calories than you burn." Whether you perform exercise to raise your caloric burn level or you reduce your intake, weight loss occurs at a deficit. The bad news is that too big of a deficit results in muscle loss, hormonal damage, and metabolic slowdown. The end result is making weight loss harder. There are always exceptions in health and fitness, but chances are, needing 1,200 calories to lose weight isn't because of their body, but because of what they have done to their body.
It is suggested that the caloric deficit not exceed 500 calories below maintenance. Under the assumption that one must eat 1,200 calories to lose weight, that would mean the number of calories needed for maintenance is 1,200 + 500 = 1,700. With the simple multipliers used to convert RMR into TDEE, we can determine the corresponding RMR's. The following table displays the five measures of activity along with the corresponding RMR that matches a TDEE of 1,700.
| Activity | Multiplier | Calories |
|---|---|---|
| Sedentary | 1.2 | 1,417 |
| Light | 1.3 | 1,308 |
| Moderate | 1.55 | 1,097 |
| Heavy | 1.625 | 1,046 |
| Very Heavy | 1.9 | 895 |
This simple analysis gives us two cases where 1,200 calories is below RMR. This is exquisitely bad over a long period of time as it is typically not sustainable, slows metabolism, slows growth and repair of tissue, and negatively effects hormone levels. The remaining three demonstrate an RMR highly unlikely to be found by anybody working out at the required level to reach a TDEE of 1,700.
In order to test large amounts of hypothetical data, I created a program to calculate RMR and BMI based on a set of conditions. The program was run with the following limitations:
Age: 18 - 64
Height: 4'11" - 6'0"
Weight: 103 -250 pounds
The test program reported no instances of a sub 1000 calorie RMR that would not be considered "Underweight." Further, of the 97,384 potential combinations based on the restrictions, there are 8% (7,703) cases of RMR between 1,000 and 1,200, with approximately 2% having a BMI classified as "Overweight" and .05% considered "Obese." Of those 2,030 cases, all of them are under 5'4" and older than 34 with the "Obese" starting at age 54. The lightest bodyweight meeting these qualifications is 129 pounds for a 4'11", 34 year old ranging up to a 146 pound, 5'4", 64 year old. If we look at RMR from each factor, RMR decreases with age and increases with weight. As weight typically increases with height, it can be seen that as height increases, so does RMR.
Again, the chances that the average female looking to lose weight falls into "1,200 calorie diet" are very slim.
As the calculations found, there are some exceptions to the "1,200 calories is not for you" rule, but chances are you aren't one of them. One exception is the person that has already damaged their metabolism by chronically under-eating. This metabolic slowdown may result in needing to eat 1,200 calories, but through proper diet, this can be reversed back to a more sustainable level. Another exception would be someone on a prescription medicine that impairs metabolic rate. The only other exception I will mention is under the direct care of a medical professional and they will have very specific reasons and guidelines for using the 1,200 calorie diet.
How Can I See Where I Am?
First, we need to find our RMR. From there, we can find our TDEE. Many calculators refer to BMR which is a very strict hospital monitored measurement of the RMR and is typically slightly lower than RMR formulas estimate. In my opinion, BMR is not relevant unless you literally sit in bed and do absolutely nothing all day. While no formula is perfect for everybody, there are two that have the best RMR predictions for the largest population. Mifflin-St Jeor is the most recent formula developed and demonstrated a greater accuracy than previous formulas. Harris-Benedict is the second formula and is still used by many of the online calculators. In order to calculate the TDEE, the RMR is multiplied by an activity quotient. You can use the Z Strength Calculator to determine your RMR and TDEE and save yourself some time.Now that we know our minimum (RMR) and maintenance (TDEE), we can create our deficit. The deficit should not force you below your RMR and should be no more than 500 calories below TDEE. I'm willing to bet fewer than five people reading this will calculate 1,200 calories as an appropriate deficit and remain above their RMR. In a perfect world, we would increase the space between our RMR and our TDEE by increasing activity, allowing us to lose weight while eating the most calories possible.
Again, if we eat too far below our TDEE, we risk slowing our metabolism, making it harder to lose weight. When this happens, the standard response is either a) eat less or b) be more active. Both options create a bigger deficit forcing the body to slow metabolism further. Remember, the human body has learned to survive over thousands of years and it will compensate to survive.
Regarding the Program Used to Gather Data
Using the limitations, the program calculated more than 97,000 combinations, finding fewer than 8,000 that resulted in an RMR of 1,200 or lower. In an attempt to relate these numbers to a common factor, it also calculated the BMI (Body Mass Index) for each of the combinations. The majority of these combinations resulted in a BMI below 22, which is well within the "Normal" range. While many of us agree BMI is a bad tool because more muscular people rank as "Overweight" or "Obese", it is a useful tool for the less muscular developing weight loss goals.Friday, June 19, 2015
Not All Free Information is Good Information
Seems like an obvious statement, but for the fitness newcomer there is so much information out there that it's hard to decipher what's good and what's guru. Over the last few weeks, I have read, heard, and seen some terrible advice given to fitness novices as they try to learn about training, develop technique, and improve themselves. I'm not talking about "bad information" that says there is only one way to build arms. I'm talking about legitimately dangerous information. Some bad information comes from forums, some from the local broscientist at the gym, and some from well-meaning but ill-informed novices that perpetuate myths. Regardless of where it originates, somebody without knowledge or a bs-o-meter for fitness is at risk.
I won't be the first to say it, but there is more than one way to accomplish any fitness related goal, and while the paths may be more or less efficient, given the correct information, they will lead to the ultimate goal. So, the goal of this post is to help you learn to identify good and useful information while discarding (and maybe even battling) the bad information while increasing your own knowledge. I'm not talking about controversial or less than optimal information; I'm talking about blatantly wrong information.
Some of you may be wondering what's wrong with the answers. In the first example, a knowledgeable lifter sees poor technique despite the made lift and provides critical feedback while others convince the lifter he's doing it right. If the poster chooses to accept the compliments of the masses over the criticisms, he runs the risk of injury as the weight increases. With the second case, the lady is already under-eating for her activity levels. If she chose to follow the standard advice of "eat less, do more," she will most definitely tank her metabolism, which we all know is worse than gaining a few pounds over time to improve her metabolism.
While forums and social media provide us fast access to free advice, the fast and free advice can also be one of the worst parts. Before the explosion of fitness forums, you had to know somebody, pay somebody, or spend hours experiencing in order to find the answer to fitness questions. Because the community was so small, it was easy to identify who was providing legitimate information and who was not. With large internet forums and the "community" of social networks, Brosef is now out in full force, providing information read in some rag, heard in some rumor mill, or picked up at a Holiday Inn Express. This isn't to say all information in these forums are bad, but being able to sniff out crap makes them much more useful.
This brings me to the heart of this post, identifying good information versus bad information and how to filter what you need. Some will say only coaches and certified trainers should be giving advice. I've even seen a person claim you should listen to them solely because they are "certified." Bull! I've seen my fair share of ignorant coaches and certified trainers giving bad advice online and doing stupid stuff in the gym. The certificate doesn't mean you're good; it means you passed a test. I learned more from training with non-certified people that had years of experience than I did by reading the book for the CPT test.
The first rule, and this one trumps them all, if they demand you listen to them because of their piece of paper, move along to somebody with less fake alpha-ness. The truly knowledgeable will always put the information out there with their rationale when the fakers just tell you to do it and resort to some form of "because I said."
If the information giver passes the first test, there are a few more steps you can use to sort the useful from the bad:
To your education!
I won't be the first to say it, but there is more than one way to accomplish any fitness related goal, and while the paths may be more or less efficient, given the correct information, they will lead to the ultimate goal. So, the goal of this post is to help you learn to identify good and useful information while discarding (and maybe even battling) the bad information while increasing your own knowledge. I'm not talking about controversial or less than optimal information; I'm talking about blatantly wrong information.
As an example, a gentleman is seeking advice on his deadlift technique, so he posts a video to be checked. Despite glaring technique issues, he gets the thumbs up and a host of "attaboys" just because he pulled more weight than the people watching the video.
Another example is a lady asking a diet / nutrition based question as she has not been able to lose weight for several months despite her high 4 days of activity and her low calorie diet. Instead of relevant and educated responses, she receives "cut your calories" and "add HIIT to your training" as advice.These ignorant responses lead people into potentially dangerous situations where they risk injury or other health problems. With more and more people turning to forums for advice, form checks, programming and nutrition advice, it's hard to know who is and who isn't giving you qualified advice.
Some of you may be wondering what's wrong with the answers. In the first example, a knowledgeable lifter sees poor technique despite the made lift and provides critical feedback while others convince the lifter he's doing it right. If the poster chooses to accept the compliments of the masses over the criticisms, he runs the risk of injury as the weight increases. With the second case, the lady is already under-eating for her activity levels. If she chose to follow the standard advice of "eat less, do more," she will most definitely tank her metabolism, which we all know is worse than gaining a few pounds over time to improve her metabolism.
While forums and social media provide us fast access to free advice, the fast and free advice can also be one of the worst parts. Before the explosion of fitness forums, you had to know somebody, pay somebody, or spend hours experiencing in order to find the answer to fitness questions. Because the community was so small, it was easy to identify who was providing legitimate information and who was not. With large internet forums and the "community" of social networks, Brosef is now out in full force, providing information read in some rag, heard in some rumor mill, or picked up at a Holiday Inn Express. This isn't to say all information in these forums are bad, but being able to sniff out crap makes them much more useful.
This brings me to the heart of this post, identifying good information versus bad information and how to filter what you need. Some will say only coaches and certified trainers should be giving advice. I've even seen a person claim you should listen to them solely because they are "certified." Bull! I've seen my fair share of ignorant coaches and certified trainers giving bad advice online and doing stupid stuff in the gym. The certificate doesn't mean you're good; it means you passed a test. I learned more from training with non-certified people that had years of experience than I did by reading the book for the CPT test.
The first rule, and this one trumps them all, if they demand you listen to them because of their piece of paper, move along to somebody with less fake alpha-ness. The truly knowledgeable will always put the information out there with their rationale when the fakers just tell you to do it and resort to some form of "because I said."
If the information giver passes the first test, there are a few more steps you can use to sort the useful from the bad:
- Know who and where you're getting advice from.
- Experience is king, everything else is second (certifications, degrees, staying at a Holiday Inn Express).
- Check the content on the site you're using. If a site caters to bodybuilding, asking questions about triathlons may result in horrible information.
- If you're on a site related to infomercial products (Beach Body, the Wraps, Detoxes), find at least 2 more sites with no ties to those products before accepting the information.
- Ask yourself if the answer makes sense.
- If you're doing an exercise and it hurts but somebody is telling you it's perfect form, clearly, it's not perfect.
- If you already exercise hard and don't eat a lot but aren't losing weight, it makes no sense to eat less and train more.
- If the answer applies to a different situation than yours, disregard the response because they couldn't even take the time to answer your specific question.
- Research your question and whatever answers you're considering for some form of consensus before accepting the advice.
- If you're looking for technique, there are a lot of youtube videos out there for instruction of movements. Video yourself and compare the two. If you're computer savvy, you can use kinovea to do side by side analysis.
- If you're looking for programming or diet advice, stay away from popular mags (Men's Health, Women's Health, Oxygen, etc) because while they may provide some good information, often times they provide partial solutions.
- If the article is trying to sell you a product, re-read the article without the product. If the answer still makes sense, use it, if not, move along.
To your education!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)