|
|
|
Written by Steven J. Fleck, PhD
|
|
Thursday, 16 July 2009 |
 Q: Due to muscular pain from my training, I have gotten into the
habit of taking a pain reliever, like ibuprofen, on almost a daily
basis…sometimes several times per day. Recently I heard that taking a
pain reliever might decrease my ability to increase my muscle size. Is
this really true?
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Robbie Durand
|
|
Wednesday, 15 July 2009 |
 It’s 8:00 a.m. and all the football players have arrived for preseason “max out” in the bench press, squat and power clean. Many of the players still look like they are not completely awake and others just seem stiff, yet they are expected to max out! I never understood when I was a strength coach why these sessions were scheduled so early in the morning, when the latest research suggests that maximal strength is best achieved in the afternoon.1
In the July issue of the International Journal of Sports Medicine, researchers examined peak strength at four different times of the day (7 a.m.-8 a.m., 12 p.m.-1 p.m., 5 p.m.-6 p.m., 10:30 p.m.-11:30 p.m.) for two consecutive days. The researchers reported that the morning values were significantly lower when compared to the rest of the day. There are many variables which can affect a lifter’s ability to generate peak force; however, none of the variables measured (sleep, stress level, normal circadian rhythms of the person, morning or night person) had a significant effect on the outcome. This study was similar to an earlier study, which had subjects perform peak isometric strength parameters from 8 a.m.-9 a.m., 1 p.m.-2 p.m. and 6 p.m.-7 p.m.; peak strength was greatest between 6 p.m.-7 p.m. When they compared the percent increase from session to session, there was a 2.76 percent increase from the morning to afternoon session, but an 11.13 percent increase from the afternoon to the evening session.5
Similar results were also reported in the Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. Researchers found that peak muscle strength was higher at 6 p.m. compared to 6 a.m.4 The average increase in strength from morning to evening was 4.6 percent. Clearly, this is not a psychological issue, yet more of a physiological condition. This is not the first study to demonstrate this effect; at least two other studies have demonstrated peak strength to be higher at 6 p.m. than at 6 a.m.2, 3 This means that much like there are changes in GH/cortisol throughout the day, there are also circadian rhythms in strength during the day, with strength being higher in the afternoon/early evening.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Robbie J. Durand, MA
|
|
Sunday, 12 July 2009 |
 Whey proteins modulate several hormones that are conducive for weight
loss. Acute studies have reported that whey protein isolate (60 grams
per day) evaluated over six months resulted in significantly lower
hyperinsulinemia (less fat storage potential), lower cortisol levels
(lean muscle preservation) and increased ghrelin release (satiety
enhancement). A new study released in Nutrition & Metabolism
reported that people on whey protein supplementation lost more weight
than a control group receiving maltrodextrins in conjunction with a
calorie-restricted diet. Each subject was instructed to consume one
supplement 20 minutes before breakfast and one supplement 20 minutes
before dinner. The whey protein supplement contained 10 grams of
protein per serving as a combination of intact whey protein and
peptides. It also contained minerals that were purified from milk. The
control group received an isocaloric beverage containing maltodextrin.
After 12 weeks, weight loss was consistently higher in the whey protein
subjects, primarily the result of losing body fat (subjects taking whey
protein lost 6.1 percent of their body fat mass). The whey protein
group subjects also lost significantly less lean muscle mass compared
to control subjects. Whey protein may be the perfect fat-loss
supplement when dieting for an important event or for targeting fat
loss while maintaining lean muscle.7
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Dan Gwartney, M.D.
|
|
Saturday, 11 July 2009 |
 As this article is being written, Roger Clemens is appearing before the
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to testify as to
whether or not he used anabolic steroids or human growth hormone.
Interestingly, prior to this, a scathing commentary from a member of
the Cato Institute (a libertarian think-tank based in Washington, DC)
on CNBC (February 13, 2008) condemned Congress for becoming involved in
regulating professional sports, spending extensive time and resources
on a matter that is not within their purview and pales in comparison to
the critical matters of national security and prosperity (Iraq, housing
crisis anyone?) to serve their addiction for media exposure. The
comment was made that were cameras not present, the Mitchell Report and
related investigations would not exist. Some may have noticed that this
was the treatment given to Barry Bonds, whose claim of the career home
run record went relatively unnoticed and unheralded due to his (Bonds’)
alleged use of numerous performance-enhancing drugs. It is a sad
commentary on our elected officials, the media and the public. Frankly,
there is a more critical need for all members of Congress, state and
local legislatures, as well as teachers, to be subjected to random drug
and alcohol testing.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Dan Gwartney, MD
|
|
Wednesday, 08 July 2009 |
 As a matter of full disclosure, I do watch the GEICO Insurance
commercials and laugh at nearly every version. In fact, the one with
Talia Shire (Rocky Balboa’s wife from the “Rocky” movies) playing a
therapist represents the apex of commercial comedy in my opinion. The
punch line, “So easy a caveman could do it,” suggests that the act of
saving money on car insurance requires no more brainpower than
discovering fire or inventing the wheel. After all, anything
accomplished by the cranially challenged Neanderthal should be simple
for modern man. Of course, as any blue-collar worker will gladly
discuss over a draft beer, book smarts don’t get much work done.
Mankind has evolved from his cave-dwelling days (whether he got there
by being a hairless ape or a divinely sparked lump of clay is outside
the scope of this article), graduating from taming fire to splitting
the atom. Yet, despite all the knowledge and wisdom gained by walking
upright for millennia, in some matters, modern man could learn a few
things from his primordial ancestors.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Dan Gwartney, MD
|
|
Monday, 06 July 2009 |
 In games and contests, there are always elements that are devastating
in their dominance. It may be as simple as rock always beating scissors
in the hand game “Rock, Paper, Scissors,” or it may be as complex as
the M1A1/2 Abrams main battle tanks loaded with depleted uranium
penetrators in Operation Desert Storm. In the battle against fat, the
devastator is insulin. Body fat generally reflects long-term energy
balance. In other words, it is a sign of how your eating habits
(calories in) compare to your metabolic demand (calories out). It is
not as simple as that though, as many people can attest after
diligently carrying calorie tables about in a futile effort to match
the numbers to the readout of a treadmill or recumbent bike.
For decades, nutritionists and cardiologists extolled the virtues of
low-fat dieting to reduce the risk of heart disease and aid in weight
loss. On the surface, it made sense to replace the most calorie-dense
macronutrient (fat) with carbohydrates, which contain less than half
the number of calories, gram for gram. Yet, cardiovascular health was
not greatly improved and the prevalence of obesity nearly tripled in
the United States.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
| << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 43 - 48 of 241 |
|
Research and Review 
