Boxing Session
"Boxers and their trainers know there’s little benefit to having enormous muscles. "
There’s no denying that boxers like David Haye have incredible physiques, and while you may never want to step into the ring and take a Audley Harrison-style battering, you might want to get in shape just like a boxer.
Boxers and their trainers know there’s little benefit to having enormous muscles. Instead, an effective boxer will have excellent core muscles, be toned from head to toe and have stellar cardio. Boxers at all levels have to be supremely dedicated to rigorous training both in the gym and outside it; just doing a portion of a boxer workout will do wonders for any average guy looking to shed a few pounds or tone up. If you need proof of what the training can do for non-fighters, take a look at how Will Smith, James Franco and Matthew McConaughey turned out.
This boxer workout can be done at a gym, a boxing club if you’re more ambitious or even at home. Try it three times a week and you’ll see results before long.
Here’s how to train like a boxer:
The Warm-Up
In any workout, it’s important to get the muscles stretched and warmed up before doing anything too strenuous. To begin your boxing warm-up, take a few minutes to get your blood flowing (jogging in place, jumping jacks) before you dynamically stretch your entire body, especially the calves, arms and back.
Then, it’s time to get your heart rate up, and there’s no better way than through skipping - a traditional part of the boxer workout. If skipping isn’t something you’ve done since primary school, you might be a little rusty. Simple jumping jacks are a good alternative until you’re comfortable with the rope, but it’s best to just dive right in. Many beginners make the mistake of jumping too high and tiring themselves out. Lift your feet no more than an inch off the ground, and get comfortable with the rope by going slowly at first. Eventually, you’ll be able to increase your speed, then alternate feet. Soon, you’ll feel comfortable doing crosses, leg raises and double jumps, and maybe even trying to skip backward.
The skipping part of your warm-up should last at least 10 minutes.
Keep Your Heart Rate Up
A common phrase in boxing, and indeed in any fight sport, is: “One more round.” The men are separated from the boys in the final round, because they’ve put themselves in the best position to win through great conditioning. By the late rounds of a fight, victory is achieved more through one’s conditioning than by fight skills alone. To that end, your boxer workout should now be governed by threes and ones: three minutes on, one minute off. This structure simulates a typical boxing round, while giving you short breaks when they’re needed.
To keep your heart rate up, move into some circuit training that will strengthen your various muscle groups. With three minutes on the timer, mix in some push-ups, sit-ups and jumping jacks, doing 30 seconds of each, repeated.
Once you’ve done a simple round or two, you can add more challenging elements to your workout, like burpees, which will build the core muscles and make you more explosive. To begin, lower into a squat with your hands in front of you. Then, place your hand on the floor and kick your feet back so that you’re in the push-up position. Quickly kick back into the squat position and jump as high as you can from the squat. The key is to get full extension, but also do this exercise as quickly as you can.
Throw Some Punches
If you go to a gym where you have some space - or perhaps you’re following this workout at home - simple shadowboxing will have your arms, chest and back burning before long. I can’t teach you how to box in a few short paragraphs, but try different punches in different combinations to really work on your upper body. Throw jabs with your off-hand, and work through hooks, uppercuts and straight punches. Keep your feet moving; you should feel a burn in your calves before long.
If you have gloves, hand wraps and a heavy bag at home, here’s an exercise that will build muscle and shed calories (again, work for three minutes at a time, and you can break that three minutes into six 30-second intervals). For your first 30 seconds, throw assorted punches at the bag. Then, throw straight punches as quickly as you can, not worrying about power. For the final 30 seconds, throw power shots as hard as you’re able, then repeat all three. For a change, you can substitute in any other activity for 30 seconds (try push-ups, jumping jacks or whatever you feel you need).
Cut To The Core
Boxers build their core muscles to protect against punishing body shots; you can build yours to look and feel better. These exercises can be done at your gym, or at home if you have a medicine ball. It’s important to use a medicine ball that’s not too heavy, but at the same time pushes your body to its limits. A 5kg ball is suitable for those weighing under 75kg and a 8kg ball is good if you‘re heavier.
Sit on the ground with your legs straight in front of you, and hold the ball on the ground beside one hip. Now, keeping your legs as straight as possible, lift your feet off the ground a couple of inches. Hold your legs up and move the ball across your body, touching it to the ground next to each hip. Do this exercise in intervals of 50, making sure not to let your heels touch the ground.
Next, move to a wall, and with your knees bent at 90 degrees, “sit” with your back against the wall (you’re not actually sitting on anything). You’ll feel a burn in your abdominals right away, but you can augment the workout by holding the medicine ball straight out in front of you. Remembering to move slowly, you can lift the ball above your head, and then return it back in front of you. If this exercise is too tough, try a lighter ball.
If you have a workout partner, there are plenty of core drills with the ball you can do together.
Cool Down
Just as you should never go from a sprint to a dead stop, it’s not a good idea to end your boxer workout abruptly. Once you’ve had enough - or worked for the desired length of time - skip for another 5 to 10 minutes, then finish with a full set of stretching. This entire workout is one that is easily done in 45 minutes, though you can add weight work to extend it.
Thursday 30 December 2010
Wednesday 15 December 2010
Training and Sex - The Answer
As Rocky once so eloquently put it:
“Hey, Adrian, I’m serious now. There’s no foolin’ around during training, understand? I wanna stay strong.”
The myth that a great performance in bed the night before a big bout will translate into a poor performance in the ring is probably as old as competition itself. The idea behind the abstinence comes from the notion that the act of ejaculation reduces testosterone, the hormone of both sexual desire and aggression in male athletes. Coaches and supporters of the belief will say that a man looses his vital energy and decreases his pugnacity every time he ejaculates.
The tradition of abstinence is particularly strong in power sports, such as boxing, where aggression is considered a valuable trait. Many boxers continue to practice the no sex clause before a fight.
This idea has become so popular that athletes in other sports have also opted to stay away from “scoring” the night before a big game. Mike Ditka, former coach of the Chicago Bears, told his players on the eve of the 1986 Superbowl: "You can only play this game once. If wives and girlfriends can't wait, tell them to take a cold shower." Most recently, soccer coach Fabio Capello limited the access his players had to their wives and girlfriends (aka, WAGS) during the World Cup to one day after each game.
Even current UFC welterweight champion Georges St-Pierre has a strong perspective on sex and training:
"...iconic fighter Rocky Marciano would excuse himself from the marital bed for months before a bout. Marciano was the only heavyweight boxer to retire undefeated. "
Genesis Of Sex And Training Idea
Greg Whyte, professor of applied sport and exercise science at Liverpool John Moores University, says that Ancient Greeks came up with this idea. According to Whyte, Ancient Greeks were fervent believers that sexual activity would sap energy, lower testosterone and reduce aggression in men. The famous Greek philosopher, Plato, was the first to tackle the issue when he wrote about Olympic champion, Ikkos of Tarentum. According to the literature, Ikkos prepared for the 84th Olympiad in 444 B.C. by eating large quantities of wild boar, cheese and goat meat, but restrained from sexual activity, fearing it could diminish his strength.
According to a Newsweek article, the Romans disagreed with the notion. In A.D. 77, Pliny the Elder wrote that sluggish athletes were revitalized by love-making. Since then, the idea that sex can impair physical performance has gripped the minds of athletes for centuries.
In the middle of the 20th century, legendary boxer Muhammad Ali reportedly went two months without sex before a big fight, claiming it made him unbeatable in the ring. Ali is considered one of the best fighters of all time; his record stands at an impressive 56 wins in 61 fights, with 37 knockouts.
Most recently, Manny Pacquiao has stated publicly that he separates himself from his wife when he trains for a fight. He only has contact with his wife during chaperoned visits. Pacquiao is considered by many in the sport as the best welterweight fighter of all time.
Throughout the centuries athletes have been disciplined to give up sex and have an early night before a competition. But is there any critical evidence to suggest that sex has any repercussion on athletic ability?
The Research
According to Ian Shrier, sports medicine specialist at McGill University, there are only two possible ways that sex before a competition can affect your performance. First is the idea that sex can make an athlete tired and weak the next day, which has been disproved. The second is that sexual activity the night before affects your state of mind. This latter potential effect has yet to be tested.
According to Shrier, sexual activity before a competition has no influence on a man's grip strength, power, balance, endurance, lateral movement, reaction time, or aerobic power.
ESPN decided to test the myth on the show Sport Science. A professional male and female fighter were tested on cardiovascular endurance, lower and upper body strength and power using impact sensors designed by the United States Boxing Association. The fighters were asked to abstain for a day in order to run the first series of tests and then after engaging in sexual intercourse with their spouse, the athletes were retested. The results indicated that physiologically, testosterone levels were higher in both the male and the female fighter after having sex. According to the numbers, the female boxer’s punch registered at 632 pounds of force pre-sex. She then registered 876 pounds of force after sex. That’s almost a 30% improvement.
More Evidence (Or Lack Thereof)
Tommy Boone, exercise physiologist at the College of St. Scholastica in Duluth, Minnesota, and author of Sex Before Athletic Competition: Myth or Fact, says there is no evidence to support abstinence before a match. In 1995, Boone conducted a study that challenged 11 athletes to a treadmill test. Some had sex 12 hours before the test and some abstained. According to Boone, there was no difference in performance between the groups.
A man's body does undergo some physical changes during sex, which include a rise in heart rate from 70 bpm at rest to up to 130 bpm when active. But compared to the exertion required during a soccer match, sex requires less than 25% of the aerobic effort, says Boone, and it lasts for much less time.
Scientists have found that, in general, sexual intercourse between married partners expends only 25 to 50 calories. That’s about the energy it takes to walk up two flights of stairs. In fact, one of the most credible studies on sex, conducted at Queen’s University in Belfast, asserts that having sex reduces the risk of heart disease and improves overall fitness.
Yet, many athletes continue to believe the myth. Athletes think of sex as an exercise that can fatigue the body and reduce aggression.
Science has proved that lovemaking is not a very demanding exercise. Furthermore, going without sex for a long period of time can even drop your testosterone levels says Emmanuele A. Jannini, professor of endocrinology at the University of L'Aquila in Italy. Jannini has done extensive research in the study of bodily secretions.
He dismisses the assertion that sex the night before a competition has a tiring effect on an athlete.
“Hey, Adrian, I’m serious now. There’s no foolin’ around during training, understand? I wanna stay strong.”
The myth that a great performance in bed the night before a big bout will translate into a poor performance in the ring is probably as old as competition itself. The idea behind the abstinence comes from the notion that the act of ejaculation reduces testosterone, the hormone of both sexual desire and aggression in male athletes. Coaches and supporters of the belief will say that a man looses his vital energy and decreases his pugnacity every time he ejaculates.
The tradition of abstinence is particularly strong in power sports, such as boxing, where aggression is considered a valuable trait. Many boxers continue to practice the no sex clause before a fight.
This idea has become so popular that athletes in other sports have also opted to stay away from “scoring” the night before a big game. Mike Ditka, former coach of the Chicago Bears, told his players on the eve of the 1986 Superbowl: "You can only play this game once. If wives and girlfriends can't wait, tell them to take a cold shower." Most recently, soccer coach Fabio Capello limited the access his players had to their wives and girlfriends (aka, WAGS) during the World Cup to one day after each game.
Even current UFC welterweight champion Georges St-Pierre has a strong perspective on sex and training:
"...iconic fighter Rocky Marciano would excuse himself from the marital bed for months before a bout. Marciano was the only heavyweight boxer to retire undefeated. "
Genesis Of Sex And Training Idea
Greg Whyte, professor of applied sport and exercise science at Liverpool John Moores University, says that Ancient Greeks came up with this idea. According to Whyte, Ancient Greeks were fervent believers that sexual activity would sap energy, lower testosterone and reduce aggression in men. The famous Greek philosopher, Plato, was the first to tackle the issue when he wrote about Olympic champion, Ikkos of Tarentum. According to the literature, Ikkos prepared for the 84th Olympiad in 444 B.C. by eating large quantities of wild boar, cheese and goat meat, but restrained from sexual activity, fearing it could diminish his strength.
According to a Newsweek article, the Romans disagreed with the notion. In A.D. 77, Pliny the Elder wrote that sluggish athletes were revitalized by love-making. Since then, the idea that sex can impair physical performance has gripped the minds of athletes for centuries.
In the middle of the 20th century, legendary boxer Muhammad Ali reportedly went two months without sex before a big fight, claiming it made him unbeatable in the ring. Ali is considered one of the best fighters of all time; his record stands at an impressive 56 wins in 61 fights, with 37 knockouts.
Most recently, Manny Pacquiao has stated publicly that he separates himself from his wife when he trains for a fight. He only has contact with his wife during chaperoned visits. Pacquiao is considered by many in the sport as the best welterweight fighter of all time.
Throughout the centuries athletes have been disciplined to give up sex and have an early night before a competition. But is there any critical evidence to suggest that sex has any repercussion on athletic ability?
The Research
According to Ian Shrier, sports medicine specialist at McGill University, there are only two possible ways that sex before a competition can affect your performance. First is the idea that sex can make an athlete tired and weak the next day, which has been disproved. The second is that sexual activity the night before affects your state of mind. This latter potential effect has yet to be tested.
According to Shrier, sexual activity before a competition has no influence on a man's grip strength, power, balance, endurance, lateral movement, reaction time, or aerobic power.
ESPN decided to test the myth on the show Sport Science. A professional male and female fighter were tested on cardiovascular endurance, lower and upper body strength and power using impact sensors designed by the United States Boxing Association. The fighters were asked to abstain for a day in order to run the first series of tests and then after engaging in sexual intercourse with their spouse, the athletes were retested. The results indicated that physiologically, testosterone levels were higher in both the male and the female fighter after having sex. According to the numbers, the female boxer’s punch registered at 632 pounds of force pre-sex. She then registered 876 pounds of force after sex. That’s almost a 30% improvement.
More Evidence (Or Lack Thereof)
Tommy Boone, exercise physiologist at the College of St. Scholastica in Duluth, Minnesota, and author of Sex Before Athletic Competition: Myth or Fact, says there is no evidence to support abstinence before a match. In 1995, Boone conducted a study that challenged 11 athletes to a treadmill test. Some had sex 12 hours before the test and some abstained. According to Boone, there was no difference in performance between the groups.
A man's body does undergo some physical changes during sex, which include a rise in heart rate from 70 bpm at rest to up to 130 bpm when active. But compared to the exertion required during a soccer match, sex requires less than 25% of the aerobic effort, says Boone, and it lasts for much less time.
Scientists have found that, in general, sexual intercourse between married partners expends only 25 to 50 calories. That’s about the energy it takes to walk up two flights of stairs. In fact, one of the most credible studies on sex, conducted at Queen’s University in Belfast, asserts that having sex reduces the risk of heart disease and improves overall fitness.
Yet, many athletes continue to believe the myth. Athletes think of sex as an exercise that can fatigue the body and reduce aggression.
Science has proved that lovemaking is not a very demanding exercise. Furthermore, going without sex for a long period of time can even drop your testosterone levels says Emmanuele A. Jannini, professor of endocrinology at the University of L'Aquila in Italy. Jannini has done extensive research in the study of bodily secretions.
He dismisses the assertion that sex the night before a competition has a tiring effect on an athlete.
Wednesday 8 December 2010
Twenty Five Running Tips
Whatever your running ability, there's something here for you
 |
 | |
| If your arms go forward, your knees will go forward – that’s how our bodies are made | |
 |
1 Watch your footing
‘Make sure your heel strikes the ground first, rather than the ball of your foot,’ advises Sajjad Afzal, a podiatrist to UK athletes. ‘Run smoothly and rhythmically.’ If you hit the ground with the side or the ball of your foot, it will roll. This has a domino effect on the rest of the body and can cause common running injuries such as shin splints, ‘runner’s knee’ and back pain.
2 Be style conscious
See a specialist to improve your running style. It could be a coach or a podiatrist, but even a member of staff in a good running shop will be able to analyse the way you run and offer tips.
3 Get pumping
Move your arms more. ‘If your arms go forward, your knees will go forward – that’s how our bodies are made.’ ‘If you have a bigger range of movement with your arms, your legs will have a greater movement too. And if you move your arms really quickly, your legs will move really quickly!’
4 Judge your pace
It may sound obvious but if you want to run a fast marathon or 10k race, you first have to learn how to judge your speed and maintain consistency. ‘Paula Radcliffe knows by the way her foot strikes the ground how fast she is running and will hit that mile marker at five mins 15 secs, or three to four seconds either side of that, every time,’ says Munroe. ‘Start by running three eight-minute miles in a week. The next week try to beat that. If you do this you’ll get quicker.’ Over a period of time you will learn to work out your speed.
5 Be progressive
Don’t train too hard too soon. If you do you will increase your risk of injury or plain, simple fatigue. Many newcomers give up because they’ve tried to go too far, too fast and have failed.
6 Work it!
That’s no excuse to slack. Work hard and remember that you get out of running what you put in.
7 Test yourself
Compete in races as part of a plan to gauge fitness, progression and race pace. Putting races in your calendar will also force you to train harder.
8 See the bigger picture
Don’t ignore the rest of your body. Running doesn’t just require strong legs and a good pair of lungs. To hold your body in the right running posture over the distance requires strong core stability. Do a weekly session of circuit training to make sure the whole body is getting a workout. A session should include press-ups, crunches, jump squats, burpees, reverse curls, split jumps and running on the spot with high knees.
9 Lift weights
Do resistance training, too. Machine exercises that will help your running include leg extensions, leg presses, hamstring curls, shoulder press and abduction work. Do three sets of between ten and 12 reps.
10 Shake up your training
Try Fartlek training. Developed in the 1930s, this is a less structured form of interval training, and something you can easily do while out on your runs. The idea is to run flat out, jog for a while, then sprint again. If you want something a little more structured try this programme. Pick two trees about 30 metres apart. Run 60 per cent of your top speed or maximum heart rate and jog back. On the second go, run at 70 per cent and jog back and then at 80 per cent and then back to 60. Do this for ten minutes.
11 Go hill running
The only way to improve your running fitness is to stress the lungs and your muscles – and there’s no better way to achieve this than on an energy-sapping hill. Run up at three-quarter pace, jog down, run up at three-quarter pace, jog down… you get the idea.
12 Be careful out there
Do everything within your power to avoid injury. Start your sessions with a light jog or a few minutes on the treadmill. Then warm up gently. Run hard during your workout and cool down fully afterwards.
13 Raise those knees
Avoid injury too by practising ‘functional mobility exercises’. Examples are high knee walking, high knee cantering and lunging. These will help your ‘running muscles’.
14 Know your heart
Work out your true maximum heart rate (MHR). The standard way to work out the rate is to subtract your age from 220 but if you’re serious about training, there’s a much better way. After a warm-up, run for three minutes as hard and as consistently as you can, then rest for two minutes, and then run again for three minutes at your max. Count your heart rate. This is your true MHR. Unless you’re a beginner and you’re still building up your fitness levels, run at between 75 and 87 per cent. ‘This will give you the greatest fitness benefits.’
15 Keep a record
Be anal – start a training log, whether it’s on a notepad or a computer. It’s a good way to boost confidence because it shows a series of quantifiable gains – or it will if you’re doing everything right.
16 Join a club
There’s nothing like peer pressure or the presence of a proper coach to bring out the best in you. There are running clubs all around the country from serious athletics clubs to those designed to help people get fit for the first time to seasoned pros.
17 Partner up
Running becomes much easier when you have a friend to spur/nag you on.
18 Stay hydrated
Drink even if you’re not thirsty. ‘The body has a poor thirst mechanism,’ says Adam Mead, senior dietician at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital in London. ‘When you’re thirsty it’s already too late. If there’s even a five per cent drop in hydration levels your performance will tail off.’
19 Know your fluids
Hydrate with water if your run is less than 15 miles. Use a sports drink if it’s longer. Take on fluid every 15 minutes of exercise.
20 Get snacking
Don’t run on an empty stomach. ‘About 60 to 90 minutes before a run, have some fruit.’
21 Eat right
Base your meals around carbs such as pasta, rice and potatoes. You should aim to eat about 70 per cent carbs, 15 per cent protein and 15 per cent fat. ‘During any physical activity you use a crucial fuel called glycogen, which comes from carbohydrates. You need to make sure you’re eating sufficient amounts. You need protein to build new cells and muscle.’
22 Do your sums
Be scientific about it. You should aim to eat five grammes of carbohydrate and one gramme of protein per kilo of body weight per day.
23 Eat as soon as you’ve run
This will aid recovery. Something like a banana is ideal because it has a high glycemic index (GI) and will give an immediate boost of energy. For your main meal, eat carbohydrates with a low GI – those that release energy slowly – such as sweet potatoes and brown or Basmati rice.
24 Chill out in the bath
Forget having a hot soak after a run. It’s the worst thing you can do because it encourages the micro-tears in your muscles to bleed out, which increases soreness. Have an ice bath instead. It’s what most top athletes do because it helps flush lactic acid out of the muscles and boosts the immune system. Unless you have half a tonne of ice to hand, run the tub with cold water and jump in for about five minutes.
25 Take a multivitamin…
Athletes require more minerals and vitamins than the average person thanks to the stresses of running. Each stride can cause tiny amounts of damage to the red blood cells in the feet, and running also produces damaging free radicals. Vitamins and minerals can help mop them up.
Tuesday 7 December 2010
All About Abdominal Workouts
How Many Types Of Sit-ups Should I Do?
Sit-ups are without doubt the most overrated exercise in the gym. That’s not to say that they are not important, it’s just that they are over-used by the majority of gym goers.
Keeping the abdominal muscles strong is essential to help prevent back pain and help maintain core stability, but performing 10 different types of sit-ups, most of which look as if they are adapted from the Karma Sutra is a waste of time. Varying all types of exercise is certainly encouraged by most personal trainers and abdominal exercises are no exceptions but trying out sit ups that are overly complex and difficult to perform correctly is often more of a hindrance to your routine.
The maximum number of abdominal exercises I give to my clients per session rarely exceeds 3 or 4 basic movements. By ensuring that every exercise is performed slowly and correctly, the abdominals can be worked intensely in a simple fluid movement without the client worrying where their arms and legs should be.
Changing the type of abdominal exercises you perform every few weeks or so is a good idea. This keeps your interest up and works the stomach slightly differently, but avoid following everyone else’s example at the gym and looking like an amateur contortionist! Ask a fitness professional for 3 simple stomach exercises every few weeks and ensure you perform each one slowly and as instructed.
Are Sit-ups More Effective On A Stability Ball?
The introduction of the stability ball has helped to revolutionise the fitness industry, particularly when it comes to abdominal exercises. Now a feature of health and fitness centres all over the world, the stability ball helps provide support for the lower back and adds variety to stomach exercises.
Out of the many questions I am asked about sit-ups and the benefits of the various abdominal exercises, the question of whether performing sit-ups on the ball is better than lying on the floor is often raised. The simple answer is that yes, sit-ups performed on a stability ball are more effective for the stomach muscles than lying on the floor and MRI scans have proved this.
The abdominal contraction while executing a sit-up on a stability ball has been shown to be far more intense than when lying on the ground, proving conclusively that your abs get a far more intense workout with this method. The exercise ball has the added benefit of helping to work a selection of other muscles such as your legs and the stabilising muscles of your core. These stabilising muscles can be recruited as much or as little as you like by narrowing your foot stance (maximum engagement) or widening it (minimum engagement).
It is often advised that you should not put your hands behind your head whilst performing the sit-up, so that you do not pull on your neck during the movement. I always advise clients that if they wish to support the head with their hands that is fine, but you must be sure not to pull on your neck.
Do Sit-ups Give You A Flat Stomach?
The false belief that performing hundreds of sit-ups every day in an effort to flatten the stomach is perhaps the most popular myth I have to deal with. The number of clients I have trained over the years who have begged me to put them through a 20-minute stomach workout to help shrink their waistline is staggering.
By performing sit-ups or ‘crunches’, as they are sometimes referred to, you are helping to strengthen and firm up the rectus abdominals muscles, more commonly known as the ‘six-pack’.
Hundreds of sit-ups may well give your stomach muscles the strength to bounce bullets but crunches will do nothing to reduce the amount of fat you have on your tummy. Abdominal fat is there because of excessive calorie consumption, so the only way to get rid of it is to burn off the calories by following a balanced diet and performing high intensity exercise such as running, cycling, aerobics and swimming.
There is one trick, however, which can help to give the appearance of a flatter stomach, regardless (within reason) of how much abdominal fat you possess. Underneath the rectus abdominals lies a band of muscle called the transverses abdominals. Also referred to as the ‘corset muscle’, the transverses abdominals helps to keep the back strong and compresses the abdomen. By exercising this muscle regularly, it can help to improve your posture and make the stomach appear flatter even though you may not have lost a single pound.
To exercise the transverses, all you need to do are two things:
1. Suck in your stomach, so your belly button is drawn towards your spine.
2. While your stomach is sucked in, do not hold your breath just keep breathing normally.
You will know that you are doing this properly when you begin to feel a minor burning sensation in the deep stomach. This is a sign that the transverses abdominals has been engaged and is being worked, just as the six-pack muscles are being worked while performing crunches. Initially, this is hard to do as many people instinctively want to breathe in as they draw in the stomach, but with practice it gets easier. If you are still finding it difficult, try performing the method on your hands and knees.
This technique is by no means a miracle cure but by performing it regularly, such as in the car, watching television or visiting the in-laws, it can help both to flatten your stomach and improve your posture.
Sit-ups are without doubt the most overrated exercise in the gym. That’s not to say that they are not important, it’s just that they are over-used by the majority of gym goers.
Keeping the abdominal muscles strong is essential to help prevent back pain and help maintain core stability, but performing 10 different types of sit-ups, most of which look as if they are adapted from the Karma Sutra is a waste of time. Varying all types of exercise is certainly encouraged by most personal trainers and abdominal exercises are no exceptions but trying out sit ups that are overly complex and difficult to perform correctly is often more of a hindrance to your routine.
The maximum number of abdominal exercises I give to my clients per session rarely exceeds 3 or 4 basic movements. By ensuring that every exercise is performed slowly and correctly, the abdominals can be worked intensely in a simple fluid movement without the client worrying where their arms and legs should be.
Changing the type of abdominal exercises you perform every few weeks or so is a good idea. This keeps your interest up and works the stomach slightly differently, but avoid following everyone else’s example at the gym and looking like an amateur contortionist! Ask a fitness professional for 3 simple stomach exercises every few weeks and ensure you perform each one slowly and as instructed.
Are Sit-ups More Effective On A Stability Ball?
The introduction of the stability ball has helped to revolutionise the fitness industry, particularly when it comes to abdominal exercises. Now a feature of health and fitness centres all over the world, the stability ball helps provide support for the lower back and adds variety to stomach exercises.
Out of the many questions I am asked about sit-ups and the benefits of the various abdominal exercises, the question of whether performing sit-ups on the ball is better than lying on the floor is often raised. The simple answer is that yes, sit-ups performed on a stability ball are more effective for the stomach muscles than lying on the floor and MRI scans have proved this.
The abdominal contraction while executing a sit-up on a stability ball has been shown to be far more intense than when lying on the ground, proving conclusively that your abs get a far more intense workout with this method. The exercise ball has the added benefit of helping to work a selection of other muscles such as your legs and the stabilising muscles of your core. These stabilising muscles can be recruited as much or as little as you like by narrowing your foot stance (maximum engagement) or widening it (minimum engagement).
It is often advised that you should not put your hands behind your head whilst performing the sit-up, so that you do not pull on your neck during the movement. I always advise clients that if they wish to support the head with their hands that is fine, but you must be sure not to pull on your neck.
Do Sit-ups Give You A Flat Stomach?
The false belief that performing hundreds of sit-ups every day in an effort to flatten the stomach is perhaps the most popular myth I have to deal with. The number of clients I have trained over the years who have begged me to put them through a 20-minute stomach workout to help shrink their waistline is staggering.
By performing sit-ups or ‘crunches’, as they are sometimes referred to, you are helping to strengthen and firm up the rectus abdominals muscles, more commonly known as the ‘six-pack’.
Hundreds of sit-ups may well give your stomach muscles the strength to bounce bullets but crunches will do nothing to reduce the amount of fat you have on your tummy. Abdominal fat is there because of excessive calorie consumption, so the only way to get rid of it is to burn off the calories by following a balanced diet and performing high intensity exercise such as running, cycling, aerobics and swimming.
There is one trick, however, which can help to give the appearance of a flatter stomach, regardless (within reason) of how much abdominal fat you possess. Underneath the rectus abdominals lies a band of muscle called the transverses abdominals. Also referred to as the ‘corset muscle’, the transverses abdominals helps to keep the back strong and compresses the abdomen. By exercising this muscle regularly, it can help to improve your posture and make the stomach appear flatter even though you may not have lost a single pound.
To exercise the transverses, all you need to do are two things:
1. Suck in your stomach, so your belly button is drawn towards your spine.
2. While your stomach is sucked in, do not hold your breath just keep breathing normally.
You will know that you are doing this properly when you begin to feel a minor burning sensation in the deep stomach. This is a sign that the transverses abdominals has been engaged and is being worked, just as the six-pack muscles are being worked while performing crunches. Initially, this is hard to do as many people instinctively want to breathe in as they draw in the stomach, but with practice it gets easier. If you are still finding it difficult, try performing the method on your hands and knees.
This technique is by no means a miracle cure but by performing it regularly, such as in the car, watching television or visiting the in-laws, it can help both to flatten your stomach and improve your posture.
Wednesday 24 November 2010
What’s wrong with Dr Gillian McKeith PhD?
I am incapable of writing about this woman without it crashing into a terrible rant but here is a man that can.
I give to you, Dr Ben Goldacre.
For years, ‘Dr’ Gillian McKeith has used her title to sell TV shows, diet books and herbal sex pills. Now the Advertising Standards Authority has stepped in. Yet the real problem is not what she calls herself, but the mumbo-jumbo she dresses up as scientific fact, says Ben Goldacre
Ben Goldacre
Monday February 12, 2007
The Guardian
Call her the Awful Poo Lady, call her Dr Gillian McKeith PhD: she is an empire, a multi-millionaire, a phenomenon, a prime-time TV celebrity, a bestselling author. She has her own range of foods and mysterious powders, she has pills to give you an erection, and her face is in every health food store in the country. Scottish Conservative politicians want her to advise the government. The Soil Association gave her a prize for educating the public. And yet, to anyone who knows the slightest bit about science, this woman is a joke.
One of those angry nerds took her down this week. A regular from my website badscience.net – I can barely contain my pride – took McKeith to the Advertising Standards Authority, complaining about her using the title “doctor” on the basis of a qualification gained by correspondence course from a non-accredited American college. He won. She may have sidestepped the publication of a damning ASA draft adjudication at the last minute by accepting – “voluntarily” – not to call herself “doctor” in her advertising any more. But would you know it, a copy of that draft adjudication has fallen into our laps, and it concludes that “the claim ‘Dr’ was likely to mislead”. The advert allegedly breached two clauses of the Committee of Advertising Practice code: “substantiation” and “truthfulness”.
Is it petty to take pleasure in this? No. McKeith is a menace to the public understanding of science. She seems to misunderstand not nuances, but the most basic aspects of biology – things that a 14-year-old could put her straight on.
She talks endlessly about chlorophyll, for example: how it’s “high in oxygen” and will “oxygenate your blood” – but chlorophyll will only make oxygen in the presence of light. It’s dark in your intestines, and even if you stuck a searchlight up your bum to prove a point, you probably wouldn’t absorb much oxygen in there, because you don’t have gills in your gut. In fact, neither do fish. In fact, forgive me, but I don’t think you really want oxygen up there, because methane fart gas mixed with oxygen is a potentially explosive combination.
Future generations will look back on this phenomenon with astonishment. Channel 4, let’s not forget, branded her very strongly, from the start, as a “clinical nutritionist”. She was Dr Gillian McKeith PhD, appearing on television every week, interpreting blood tests, and examining patients who had earlier had irrigation equipment stuck right up into their rectums. She was “Dr McKeith”, “the diet doctor”, giving diagnoses, talking knowledgeably about treatment, with complex scientific terminology, and all the authority her white coat and laboratory setting could muster. So back to the science. She says DNA is an anti-ageing constituent: if you “do not have enough RNA/DNA”, in fact, you “may ultimately age prematurely”. Stress can deplete your DNA, but algae will increase it: and she reckons it’s only present in growing cells. Is my semen growing? Is a virus growing? Is chicken liver pate growing? All of these contain plenty of DNA. She says that “each sprouting seed is packed with the nutritional energy needed to create a full-grown, healthy plant”. Does a banana plant have the same amount of calories as a banana seed? The ridiculousness is endless.
In fact, I don’t care what kind of squabbles McKeith wants to engage in over the technicalities of whether a non-accredited correspondence-course PhD from the US entitles you, by the strictest letter of the law, to call yourself “doctor”: to me, nobody can be said to have a meaningful qualification in any biology-related subject if they make the same kind of basic mistakes made by McKeith.
And the scholarliness of her work is a thing to behold: she produces lengthy documents that have an air of “referenciness”, with nice little superscript numbers, which talk about trials, and studies, and research, and papers … but when you follow the numbers, and check the references, it’s shocking how often they aren’t what she claimed them to be in the main body of the text. Or they refer to funny little magazines and books, such as Delicious, Creative Living, Healthy Eating, and my favourite, Spiritual Nutrition and the Rainbow Diet, rather than proper academic journals.
She even does this in the book Miracle Superfood, which, we are told, is the published form of her PhD. “In laboratory experiments with anaemic animals, red-blood cell counts have returned to normal within four or five days when chlorophyll was given,” she says. Her reference for this experimental data is a magazine called Health Store News. “In the heart,” she explains, “chlorophyll aids in the transmission of nerve impulses that control contraction.” A statement that is referenced to the second issue of a magazine called Earthletter.
To me this is cargo cult science, as the great Professor Richard Feynman described Melanesian religious activities 30 years ago: “During the war they saw aeroplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head as headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas – he’s the controller – and they wait for the aeroplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No aeroplanes land.”
McKeith’s pseudo-academic work is like the rituals of the cargo cult: the form is superficially right, the superscript numbers are there, the technical words are scattered about, she talks about research and trials and findings, but the substance is lacking. I actually don’t find this bit very funny. It makes me quite depressed to think about her, sitting up, perhaps alone, studiously and earnestly typing this stuff out.
One window into her world is the extraordinary way she responds to criticism: with legal threats and blatantly, outrageously misleading statements, emitted with such regularity that it’s reasonable to assume she will do the same thing with this current kerfuffle over her use of the title “doctor”. So that you know how to approach the rebuttals to come, let’s look at McKeith’s rebuttals of the recent past.
Three months ago she was censured by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for illegally selling a rather tragic range of herbal sex pills called Fast Formula Horny Goat Weed Complex, advertised as shown by a “controlled study” to promote sexual satisfaction, and sold with explicit medicinal claims. She was ordered to remove the products from sale immediately. She complied – the alternative would have been prosecution – but in response, McKeith’s website announced that the sex pills had been withdrawn because of “the new EU licensing laws regarding herbal products”. She engaged in Europhobic banter with the Scottish Herald newspaper: “EU bureaucrats are clearly concerned that people in the UK are having too much good sex,” she explained.
Rubbish. I contacted the MHRA, and they said: “This has nothing to do with new EU regulations. The information on the McKeith website is incorrect.” Was it a mistake? “Ms McKeith’s organisation had already been made aware of the requirements of medicines legislation in previous years; there was no reason at all for all the products not to be compliant with the law.” They go on. “The Wild Pink Yam and Horny Goat Weed products marketed by McKeith Research Ltd were never legal for sale in the UK.”
Now, once would be unfortunate, but this is an enduring pattern. When McKeith was first caught out on the ridiculous and erroneous claims of her CV – she claimed, for example, to have a PhD from the reputable American College of Nutrition – her representatives suggested that this was a mistake, made by a Spanish work experience kid, who posted the wrong CV. Except the very same claim about the American College of Nutrition was also in one of her books from several years previously. That’s a long work experience stint.
She even sneaked one into this very newspaper, during a profile on her: “Doubt has also been cast on the value of McKeith’s certified membership of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants, especially since Guardian journalist Ben Goldacre managed to buy the same membership online for his dead cat for $60. McKeith’s spokeswoman says of this membership: “Gillian has ‘professional membership’, which is membership designed for practising nutritional and dietary professionals, and is distinct from ‘associate membership’, which is open to all individuals. To gain professional membership Gillian provided proof of her degree and three professional references.”
Well. My dead cat Hettie is also a “certified professional member” of the AANC. I have the certificate hanging in my loo. Perhaps it didn’t even occur to the journalist that McKeith could be wrong. More likely, of course, in the tradition of nervous journalists, I suspect she was hurried, on deadline, and felt she had to get McKeith’s “right of reply” in, even if it cast doubts on – I’ll admit my beef here – my own hard-won investigative revelations about my dead cat. I mean, I don’t sign my dead cat up to bogus professional organisations for the good of my health, you know.
But those who criticise McKeith have reason to worry. McKeith goes after people, and nastily. She has a libel case against the Sun over comments they made in 2004 that has still not seen much movement. But the Sun is a large, wealthy institution, and it can protect itself with a large and well-remunerated legal team. Others can’t. A charming but – forgive me – obscure blogger called PhDiva made some relatively innocent comments about nutritionists, mentioning McKeith, and received a letter threatening costly legal action from Atkins Solicitors, “the reputation and brand-management specialists”. Google received a threatening legal letter simply for linking to – forgive me – a fairly obscure webpage on McKeith.
She has also made legal threats to a fantastically funny website called Eclectech for hosting a silly animation of McKeith singing a silly song, at around the time she was on Fame Academy.
Most of these legal tussles revolve around the issue of her qualifications, though these things shouldn’t be difficult or complicated. If anyone wanted to check my degrees, memberships, or affiliations, then they could call up the institutions, and get instant confirmation: job done. If you said I wasn’t a doctor, I wouldn’t sue you; I’d roar with laughter.
If you contact the Australasian College of Health Sciences (Portland, US) where McKeith has a “pending diploma in herbal medicine”, they say they can’t tell you anything about their students. When you contact Clayton College of Natural Health to ask where you can read her PhD, they say you can’t. What kind of organisations are these? If I said I had a PhD from Cambridge, US or UK (I have neither), it would only take you a day to find it.
But McKeith’s most heinous abuse of legal chill is exemplified by a nasty little story from 2000, when she threatened a retired professor of nutritional medicine for questioning her ideas.
Shortly after the publication of McKeith’s book Living Food for Health, before she was famous, John Garrow wrote an article about some of the rather bizarre scientific claims she was making. He was struck by the strength with which she presented her credentials as a scientist (“I continue every day to research, test and write furiously so that you may benefit …” etc). In fact, he has since said that he assumed – like many others – that she was a proper doctor. Sorry: a medical doctor. Sorry: a qualified conventional medical doctor who attended an accredited medical school.
Anyway, in this book, McKeith promised to explain how you can “boost your energy, heal your organs and cells, detoxify your body, strengthen your kidneys, improve your digestion, strengthen your immune system, reduce cholesterol and high blood pressure, break down fat, cellulose and starch, activate the enzyme energies of your body, strengthen your spleen and liver function, increase mental and physical endurance, regulate your blood sugar, and lessen hunger cravings and lose weight.”
These are not modest goals, but her thesis was that it was all possible with a diet rich in enzymes from “live” raw food – fruit, vegetables, seeds, nuts, and especially live sprouts, which “are the food sources of digestive enzymes”. McKeith even offered “combination living food powder for clinical purposes” in case people didn’t want to change their diet, and she used this for “clinical trials” with patients at her clinic.
Garrow was sceptical of her claims. Apart from anything else, as emeritus professor of human nutrition at the University of London, he knew that human animals have their own digestive enzymes, and a plant enzyme you eat is likely to be digested like any other protein. As any professor of nutrition, and indeed many GCSE biology students, could happily tell you.
Garrow read the book closely, as have I. These “clinical trials” seemed to be a few anecdotes in her book about how incredibly well McKeith’s patients felt after seeing her. No controls, no placebo, no attempt to quantify or measure improvements. So Garrow made a modest proposal, and I am quoting it in its entirety, partly because it is a rather elegantly written exposition of the scientific method by an extremely eminent academic authority on the science of nutrition, but mainly because I want you to see how politely he stated his case.
“I also am a clinical nutritionist,” began Professor Garrow, “and I believe that many of the statements in this book are wrong. My hypothesis is that any benefits which Dr McKeith has observed in her patients who take her living food powder have nothing to do with their enzyme content. If I am correct, then patients given powder which has been heated above 118F for 20 minutes will do just as well as patients given the active powder. This amount of heat would destroy all enzymes, but make little change to other nutrients apart from vitamin C, so both groups of patients should receive a small supplement of vitamin C (say 60mg/day). However, if Dr McKeith is correct, it should be easy to deduce from the boosting of energy, etc, which patients received the active powder and which the inactivated one.
“Here, then, is a testable hypothesis by which nutritional science might be advanced. I hope that Dr McKeith’s instincts, as a fellow-scientist, will impel her to accept this challenge. As a further inducement I suggest we each post, say, £1,000, with an independent stakeholder. If we carry out the test, and I am proved wrong, she will, of course, collect my stake, and I will publish a fulsome apology in this newsletter. If the results show that she is wrong I will donate her stake to HealthWatch [a medical campaigning group], and suggest that she should tell the 1,500 patients on her waiting list that further research has shown that the claimed benefits of her diet have not been observed under controlled conditions. We scientists have a noble tradition of formally withdrawing our publications if subsequent research shows the results are not reproducible – don’t we?”
This was published in – forgive me – a fairly obscure medical newsletter. Sadly, McKeith – who, to the best of my knowledge, despite all her claims about her extensive “resesarch”, has never published in a proper “Pubmed-listed” peer-reviewed academic journal – did not take up this offer to collaborate on a piece of research with a professor of nutrition.
Instead, Garrow received a call from McKeith’s lawyer husband, Howard Magaziner, accusing him of defamation and promising legal action. Garrow, an immensely affable and relaxed old academic, shrugged this off with style. He told me. “I said, ‘Sue me.’ I’m still waiting.” His offer of £1,000 still stands; I’ll make it £2,000.
But, to me, it’s tempting to dismiss the question of whether or not McKeith should call herself “doctor” as a red herring, a distraction, an unnecessary ad hominem squabble. Because despite her litigiousness, her illegal medicinal products, her ropey qualifications, her abusiveness, despite her making the wounded and obese cry on television, despite her apparently misunderstanding some of the most basic aspects of GCSE biology, while doling out “scientific” advice in a white coat, despite her farcical “academic” work, despite the unpleasantness of the food she endorses, there are still many who will claim: “You can say what you like about McKeith, but she has improved the nation’s diet.”
Let me be very clear. Anyone who tells you to eat your greens is all right by me. If that was the end of it, I’d be McKeith’s biggest fan, because I’m all in favour of “evidence-based interventions to improve the nation’s health”, as they used to say to us in medical school.
But let’s look at the evidence. Diet has been studied very extensively, and there are some things that we know with a fair degree of certainty: there is convincing evidence that diets rich in fresh fruit and vegetables, with natural sources of dietary fibre, avoiding obesity, moderate alcohol, and physical exercise, are protective against things such as cancer and heart disease.
But nutritionists don’t stop there, because they can’t: they have to manufacture complication, to justify the existence of their profession. And what an extraordinary new profession it is. They’ve appeared out of nowhere, with a strong new-age bent, but dressing themselves up in the cloak of scientific authority. Because there is, of course, a genuine body of research about nutrition and health, to which these new “nutritionists” are spectacularly unreliable witnesses. You don’t get sober professors from the Medical Research Council’s Human Nutrition Research Unit on telly talking about the evidence on food and health; you get the media nutritionists. It’s like the difference between astrology and astronomy.
These new nutritionists have a major commercial problem with evidence. There’s nothing very professional or proprietary about “eat your greens”, so they have had to push things further: but unfortunately for the nutritionists, the technical, confusing, overcomplicated, tinkering interventions that they promote are very frequently not supported by convincing evidence.
And that’s not for lack of looking. This is not about the medical hegemony neglecting to address the holistic needs of the people. In many cases, the research has been done, and we know that the more specific claims of nutritionists are actively wrong.
I’ve got too much sense to subject you to reams of scientific detail – I’ve learned from McKeith that you need theatrical abuse to hold the public’s attention – but we can easily do one representative example. The antioxidant story is one of the most ubiquitous health claims of the nutritionists. Antioxidants mop up free radicals, so in theory, looking at metabolism flow charts in biochemistry textbooks, having more of them might be beneficial to health. High blood levels of antioxidants were associated, in the 1980s, with longer life. Fruit and vegetables have lots of antioxidants, and fruit and veg really are good for you. So it all made sense.
But when you do compare people taking antioxidant supplement tablets with people on placebo, there’s no benefit; if anything, the antioxidant pills are harmful. Fruit and veg are still good for you, but as you can see, it looks as if it’s complicated and it might not just be about the extra antioxidants. It’s a surprising finding, but that’s science all over: the results are often counterintuitive. And that’s exactly why you do scientific research, to check your assumptions. Otherwise it wouldn’t be called “science”, it would be called “assuming”, or “guessing”, or “making it up as you go along”.
But don’t get distracted. Basic, sensible dietary advice, that we all know – be honest – still stands. It’s the unjustified, self-serving and unnecessary overcomplication of this basic sensible dietary advice that is, to my mind, one of the greatest crimes of the nutritionist movement. I don’t think it’s excessive to talk about consumers paralysed with confusion in supermarkets.
Although it’s just as likely that they will be paralysed with fear, because McKeith’s stock in trade is abuse, on a scale that would have any doctor struck off: making people cry for the television cameras, I assume deliberately, and using fear and bullying to get them to change their lifestyles. As a posture it is seductive, it has a sense of generating movement, but if you drag yourself away from the theatricality of souped-up recipe and lifestyle shows on telly, the evidence shows that scare campaigns tend not to get people changing their behaviour in the long term.
So what can you do? There’s the rub. In reality, again, away from the cameras, the most significant “lifestyle” cause of death and disease is social class. Here’s a perfect example. I rent a flat in London’s Kentish Town on my modest junior doctor’s salary (don’t believe what you read in the papers about doctors’ wages, either). This is a very poor working-class area, and the male life expectancy is about 70 years. Two miles away in Hampstead, meanwhile, where the millionaire Dr Gillian McKeith PhD owns a very large property, surrounded by other wealthy middle-class people, male life expectancy is almost 80 years. I know this because I have the Annual Public Health Report for Camden open on the table right now.
This phenomenal disparity in life expectancy – the difference between a lengthy and rich retirement, and a very truncated one indeed – is not because the people in Hampstead are careful to eat a handful of Brazil nuts every day, to make sure they’re not deficient in selenium, as per nutritionists’ advice.
And that’s the most sinister feature of the whole nutritionist project, graphically exemplified by McKeith: it’s a manifesto of rightwing individualism – you are what you eat, and people die young because they deserve it. They choose death, through ignorance and laziness, but you choose life, fresh fish, olive oil, and that’s why you’re healthy. You’re going to see 78. You deserve it. Not like them.
How can I be sure that this phenomenal difference in life expectancy between rich and poor isn’t due to the difference in diet? Because I’ve read the dietary intervention studies: when you intervene and make a huge effort to change people’s diets, and get them eating more fruit and veg, you find the benefits, where they are positive at all, are actually very modest. Nothing like 10 years.
But genuine public health interventions to address the real social and lifestyle causes of disease are far less lucrative, and far less of a spectacle, than anything a food crank or a TV producer would ever dream of dipping into. What prime-time TV series looks at food deserts created by giant supermarket chains, the very companies with which stellar media nutritionists so often have lucrative commercial contracts? What show deals with social inequality driving health inequality? Where’s the human interest in prohibiting the promotion of bad foods; facilitating access to nutrient-rich foods with taxation; or maintaining a clear labelling system? Where is the spectacle in “enabling environments” that naturally promote exercise, or urban planning that prioritises cyclists, pedestrians and public transport over the car? Or reducing the ever-increasing inequality between senior executive and shop-floor pay?
This is serious stuff. We don’t need any more stupid ideas about health in the world. We have a president of South Africa who has denied that HIV exists, we have mumps and measles on the rise, we have quackery in the ascendant like never before, and whatever Tony Blair might have to say about homoeopathy being a fight not worth fighting for scientists, we cannot indulge portions of pseudoscientific ludicrousness as if they don’t have wider ramifications for society, and for the public misunderstanding of science.
I am writing this article, sneakily, late, at the back of the room, in the Royal College of Physicians, at a conference discussing how to free up access to medical academic knowledge for the public. At the front, as I type, Sir Muir Gray, director of the NHS National Electronic Library For Health, is speaking: “Ignorance is like cholera,” he says. “It cannot be controlled by the individual alone: it requires the organised efforts of society.” He’s right: in the 19th and 20th centuries, we made huge advances through the provision of clean, clear water; and in the 21st century, clean, clear information will produce those same advances.
Gillian McKeith has nothing to contribute: and Channel 4, which bent over backwards to dress her up in the cloak of scientific authority, should be ashamed of itself.
‘With all due respect, you’re wrong’: When McKeith put a cabbie in his place
Here is a bizarre story, which McKeith is evidently proud of, because not only does she recount it in her book, she has also recounted it in other published articles. She is in a cab, and the cab driver has spotted her, and tries to spark up a conversation:
“As I sat down to enjoy the ride and sighed a sense of relief in honour of some quiet time, I barely heard some mumbling from Harry to break a much cherished silence. Ignoring it to soak in the rapidly moving scenery, I heard it again … ‘You know, fish has more omegas than flax,’ he stated. ‘I beg your pardon,’ I said. ‘I said that fish has more omegas than flax seeds,’ he re-stated. The only thing I could think of was: ‘Why was this invasive, somewhat jovial, but truly kind man, talking about flax …’ ‘In all due respect, you’re wrong, Harry.
Flax seeds contain far greater levels of the healthy oils (omega-3 and omega-6) in a properly balanced and assimilable form,’ I explained. ‘No, I disagree,’ he argued. ‘What do you mean, you disagree? Have you spent years conducting clinical research, working with patients, lecturing, teaching, studying the omega oils in flax, obtaining worldwide data, compiling one of the largest private health libraries on the planet, and writing extensively on the topic?’ I asked. Not to mention writing this very article on this very day.
‘No,’ Harry feebly replied. I wondered, ‘Are you a scientist, a biochemist, a botanist, or have you spent a lifetime studying food and biochemistry as I have done?’ ‘No,’ he again replied. ‘So, where do you get such stuff? Where is your scientific authority?’ I demanded. Harry proudly announced: ‘Oh, my wife is a doctor – a gynaecologist – by the way.’ ‘Is she a food specialist or nutritional biochemist as well?’ I quickly retorted. ‘Um, ah, well, no, but she is a doctor,’ he offered.”
Charming. But flax seeds contain oestrogenic compounds, and fibre, so they’re not very “assimilable” unless you crush them, in which case they taste foul, and they’re sold as a laxative in doses of 15g. And you will need a lot of them. When you account for the poor conversion in the body from plant-form omega oils to the animal forms that are most beneficial (called DHA and EPA) then flax seeds and fish contain roughly the same amounts.
But in the real world, rather than the raw figures, it’s very easy to eat 100g of mackerel, whereas it’s tricky to get a tablespoon of flax seed into you. (Similarly, parsley is a rich source of vitamin C, but you’re not going to eat an orange sized lump of it.) As for “properly balanced”, I don’t know if she means spiritually or biologically, but fish is much higher in omega-3, which most people would say is better.
So… O frabjous day. And it’s all thanks to a badscience regular who wishes to remain anonymous. We could do with more of your sort, come and play in the badscience.net forums if you’re in a motivated mood, where there are some fun plots being hatched in the new activism room. Hurrah!
McKeith’s responses:
Lots of bits of media from this, the fun ones are where Max Clifford responds to my 4,500 word research-heavy torpedo of her science and bullying by saying I’m jealous of her money. Lots more of these kicking around, I’ll bung them up when I get the chance, this from Irish radio, another from Radio 4.
badscience.net/files/gillian_ire_radio.mp3
Also I see she’s been suggesting the ASA draft ruling was about her being a medical doctor: this is not so, the ASA draft ruling, of which I have a copy, says very clearly: “We considered that people would expect the term “Dr” in the leaflet to refer to a medical qualification, or to a doctorate from a UK university or accredited insitution [my italics].”
I give to you, Dr Ben Goldacre.
For years, ‘Dr’ Gillian McKeith has used her title to sell TV shows, diet books and herbal sex pills. Now the Advertising Standards Authority has stepped in. Yet the real problem is not what she calls herself, but the mumbo-jumbo she dresses up as scientific fact, says Ben Goldacre
Ben Goldacre
Monday February 12, 2007
The Guardian
Call her the Awful Poo Lady, call her Dr Gillian McKeith PhD: she is an empire, a multi-millionaire, a phenomenon, a prime-time TV celebrity, a bestselling author. She has her own range of foods and mysterious powders, she has pills to give you an erection, and her face is in every health food store in the country. Scottish Conservative politicians want her to advise the government. The Soil Association gave her a prize for educating the public. And yet, to anyone who knows the slightest bit about science, this woman is a joke.
One of those angry nerds took her down this week. A regular from my website badscience.net – I can barely contain my pride – took McKeith to the Advertising Standards Authority, complaining about her using the title “doctor” on the basis of a qualification gained by correspondence course from a non-accredited American college. He won. She may have sidestepped the publication of a damning ASA draft adjudication at the last minute by accepting – “voluntarily” – not to call herself “doctor” in her advertising any more. But would you know it, a copy of that draft adjudication has fallen into our laps, and it concludes that “the claim ‘Dr’ was likely to mislead”. The advert allegedly breached two clauses of the Committee of Advertising Practice code: “substantiation” and “truthfulness”.
Is it petty to take pleasure in this? No. McKeith is a menace to the public understanding of science. She seems to misunderstand not nuances, but the most basic aspects of biology – things that a 14-year-old could put her straight on.
She talks endlessly about chlorophyll, for example: how it’s “high in oxygen” and will “oxygenate your blood” – but chlorophyll will only make oxygen in the presence of light. It’s dark in your intestines, and even if you stuck a searchlight up your bum to prove a point, you probably wouldn’t absorb much oxygen in there, because you don’t have gills in your gut. In fact, neither do fish. In fact, forgive me, but I don’t think you really want oxygen up there, because methane fart gas mixed with oxygen is a potentially explosive combination.
Future generations will look back on this phenomenon with astonishment. Channel 4, let’s not forget, branded her very strongly, from the start, as a “clinical nutritionist”. She was Dr Gillian McKeith PhD, appearing on television every week, interpreting blood tests, and examining patients who had earlier had irrigation equipment stuck right up into their rectums. She was “Dr McKeith”, “the diet doctor”, giving diagnoses, talking knowledgeably about treatment, with complex scientific terminology, and all the authority her white coat and laboratory setting could muster. So back to the science. She says DNA is an anti-ageing constituent: if you “do not have enough RNA/DNA”, in fact, you “may ultimately age prematurely”. Stress can deplete your DNA, but algae will increase it: and she reckons it’s only present in growing cells. Is my semen growing? Is a virus growing? Is chicken liver pate growing? All of these contain plenty of DNA. She says that “each sprouting seed is packed with the nutritional energy needed to create a full-grown, healthy plant”. Does a banana plant have the same amount of calories as a banana seed? The ridiculousness is endless.
In fact, I don’t care what kind of squabbles McKeith wants to engage in over the technicalities of whether a non-accredited correspondence-course PhD from the US entitles you, by the strictest letter of the law, to call yourself “doctor”: to me, nobody can be said to have a meaningful qualification in any biology-related subject if they make the same kind of basic mistakes made by McKeith.
And the scholarliness of her work is a thing to behold: she produces lengthy documents that have an air of “referenciness”, with nice little superscript numbers, which talk about trials, and studies, and research, and papers … but when you follow the numbers, and check the references, it’s shocking how often they aren’t what she claimed them to be in the main body of the text. Or they refer to funny little magazines and books, such as Delicious, Creative Living, Healthy Eating, and my favourite, Spiritual Nutrition and the Rainbow Diet, rather than proper academic journals.
She even does this in the book Miracle Superfood, which, we are told, is the published form of her PhD. “In laboratory experiments with anaemic animals, red-blood cell counts have returned to normal within four or five days when chlorophyll was given,” she says. Her reference for this experimental data is a magazine called Health Store News. “In the heart,” she explains, “chlorophyll aids in the transmission of nerve impulses that control contraction.” A statement that is referenced to the second issue of a magazine called Earthletter.
To me this is cargo cult science, as the great Professor Richard Feynman described Melanesian religious activities 30 years ago: “During the war they saw aeroplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head as headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas – he’s the controller – and they wait for the aeroplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No aeroplanes land.”
McKeith’s pseudo-academic work is like the rituals of the cargo cult: the form is superficially right, the superscript numbers are there, the technical words are scattered about, she talks about research and trials and findings, but the substance is lacking. I actually don’t find this bit very funny. It makes me quite depressed to think about her, sitting up, perhaps alone, studiously and earnestly typing this stuff out.
One window into her world is the extraordinary way she responds to criticism: with legal threats and blatantly, outrageously misleading statements, emitted with such regularity that it’s reasonable to assume she will do the same thing with this current kerfuffle over her use of the title “doctor”. So that you know how to approach the rebuttals to come, let’s look at McKeith’s rebuttals of the recent past.
Three months ago she was censured by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for illegally selling a rather tragic range of herbal sex pills called Fast Formula Horny Goat Weed Complex, advertised as shown by a “controlled study” to promote sexual satisfaction, and sold with explicit medicinal claims. She was ordered to remove the products from sale immediately. She complied – the alternative would have been prosecution – but in response, McKeith’s website announced that the sex pills had been withdrawn because of “the new EU licensing laws regarding herbal products”. She engaged in Europhobic banter with the Scottish Herald newspaper: “EU bureaucrats are clearly concerned that people in the UK are having too much good sex,” she explained.
Rubbish. I contacted the MHRA, and they said: “This has nothing to do with new EU regulations. The information on the McKeith website is incorrect.” Was it a mistake? “Ms McKeith’s organisation had already been made aware of the requirements of medicines legislation in previous years; there was no reason at all for all the products not to be compliant with the law.” They go on. “The Wild Pink Yam and Horny Goat Weed products marketed by McKeith Research Ltd were never legal for sale in the UK.”
Now, once would be unfortunate, but this is an enduring pattern. When McKeith was first caught out on the ridiculous and erroneous claims of her CV – she claimed, for example, to have a PhD from the reputable American College of Nutrition – her representatives suggested that this was a mistake, made by a Spanish work experience kid, who posted the wrong CV. Except the very same claim about the American College of Nutrition was also in one of her books from several years previously. That’s a long work experience stint.
She even sneaked one into this very newspaper, during a profile on her: “Doubt has also been cast on the value of McKeith’s certified membership of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants, especially since Guardian journalist Ben Goldacre managed to buy the same membership online for his dead cat for $60. McKeith’s spokeswoman says of this membership: “Gillian has ‘professional membership’, which is membership designed for practising nutritional and dietary professionals, and is distinct from ‘associate membership’, which is open to all individuals. To gain professional membership Gillian provided proof of her degree and three professional references.”
Well. My dead cat Hettie is also a “certified professional member” of the AANC. I have the certificate hanging in my loo. Perhaps it didn’t even occur to the journalist that McKeith could be wrong. More likely, of course, in the tradition of nervous journalists, I suspect she was hurried, on deadline, and felt she had to get McKeith’s “right of reply” in, even if it cast doubts on – I’ll admit my beef here – my own hard-won investigative revelations about my dead cat. I mean, I don’t sign my dead cat up to bogus professional organisations for the good of my health, you know.
But those who criticise McKeith have reason to worry. McKeith goes after people, and nastily. She has a libel case against the Sun over comments they made in 2004 that has still not seen much movement. But the Sun is a large, wealthy institution, and it can protect itself with a large and well-remunerated legal team. Others can’t. A charming but – forgive me – obscure blogger called PhDiva made some relatively innocent comments about nutritionists, mentioning McKeith, and received a letter threatening costly legal action from Atkins Solicitors, “the reputation and brand-management specialists”. Google received a threatening legal letter simply for linking to – forgive me – a fairly obscure webpage on McKeith.
She has also made legal threats to a fantastically funny website called Eclectech for hosting a silly animation of McKeith singing a silly song, at around the time she was on Fame Academy.
Most of these legal tussles revolve around the issue of her qualifications, though these things shouldn’t be difficult or complicated. If anyone wanted to check my degrees, memberships, or affiliations, then they could call up the institutions, and get instant confirmation: job done. If you said I wasn’t a doctor, I wouldn’t sue you; I’d roar with laughter.
If you contact the Australasian College of Health Sciences (Portland, US) where McKeith has a “pending diploma in herbal medicine”, they say they can’t tell you anything about their students. When you contact Clayton College of Natural Health to ask where you can read her PhD, they say you can’t. What kind of organisations are these? If I said I had a PhD from Cambridge, US or UK (I have neither), it would only take you a day to find it.
But McKeith’s most heinous abuse of legal chill is exemplified by a nasty little story from 2000, when she threatened a retired professor of nutritional medicine for questioning her ideas.
Shortly after the publication of McKeith’s book Living Food for Health, before she was famous, John Garrow wrote an article about some of the rather bizarre scientific claims she was making. He was struck by the strength with which she presented her credentials as a scientist (“I continue every day to research, test and write furiously so that you may benefit …” etc). In fact, he has since said that he assumed – like many others – that she was a proper doctor. Sorry: a medical doctor. Sorry: a qualified conventional medical doctor who attended an accredited medical school.
Anyway, in this book, McKeith promised to explain how you can “boost your energy, heal your organs and cells, detoxify your body, strengthen your kidneys, improve your digestion, strengthen your immune system, reduce cholesterol and high blood pressure, break down fat, cellulose and starch, activate the enzyme energies of your body, strengthen your spleen and liver function, increase mental and physical endurance, regulate your blood sugar, and lessen hunger cravings and lose weight.”
These are not modest goals, but her thesis was that it was all possible with a diet rich in enzymes from “live” raw food – fruit, vegetables, seeds, nuts, and especially live sprouts, which “are the food sources of digestive enzymes”. McKeith even offered “combination living food powder for clinical purposes” in case people didn’t want to change their diet, and she used this for “clinical trials” with patients at her clinic.
Garrow was sceptical of her claims. Apart from anything else, as emeritus professor of human nutrition at the University of London, he knew that human animals have their own digestive enzymes, and a plant enzyme you eat is likely to be digested like any other protein. As any professor of nutrition, and indeed many GCSE biology students, could happily tell you.
Garrow read the book closely, as have I. These “clinical trials” seemed to be a few anecdotes in her book about how incredibly well McKeith’s patients felt after seeing her. No controls, no placebo, no attempt to quantify or measure improvements. So Garrow made a modest proposal, and I am quoting it in its entirety, partly because it is a rather elegantly written exposition of the scientific method by an extremely eminent academic authority on the science of nutrition, but mainly because I want you to see how politely he stated his case.
“I also am a clinical nutritionist,” began Professor Garrow, “and I believe that many of the statements in this book are wrong. My hypothesis is that any benefits which Dr McKeith has observed in her patients who take her living food powder have nothing to do with their enzyme content. If I am correct, then patients given powder which has been heated above 118F for 20 minutes will do just as well as patients given the active powder. This amount of heat would destroy all enzymes, but make little change to other nutrients apart from vitamin C, so both groups of patients should receive a small supplement of vitamin C (say 60mg/day). However, if Dr McKeith is correct, it should be easy to deduce from the boosting of energy, etc, which patients received the active powder and which the inactivated one.
“Here, then, is a testable hypothesis by which nutritional science might be advanced. I hope that Dr McKeith’s instincts, as a fellow-scientist, will impel her to accept this challenge. As a further inducement I suggest we each post, say, £1,000, with an independent stakeholder. If we carry out the test, and I am proved wrong, she will, of course, collect my stake, and I will publish a fulsome apology in this newsletter. If the results show that she is wrong I will donate her stake to HealthWatch [a medical campaigning group], and suggest that she should tell the 1,500 patients on her waiting list that further research has shown that the claimed benefits of her diet have not been observed under controlled conditions. We scientists have a noble tradition of formally withdrawing our publications if subsequent research shows the results are not reproducible – don’t we?”
This was published in – forgive me – a fairly obscure medical newsletter. Sadly, McKeith – who, to the best of my knowledge, despite all her claims about her extensive “resesarch”, has never published in a proper “Pubmed-listed” peer-reviewed academic journal – did not take up this offer to collaborate on a piece of research with a professor of nutrition.
Instead, Garrow received a call from McKeith’s lawyer husband, Howard Magaziner, accusing him of defamation and promising legal action. Garrow, an immensely affable and relaxed old academic, shrugged this off with style. He told me. “I said, ‘Sue me.’ I’m still waiting.” His offer of £1,000 still stands; I’ll make it £2,000.
But, to me, it’s tempting to dismiss the question of whether or not McKeith should call herself “doctor” as a red herring, a distraction, an unnecessary ad hominem squabble. Because despite her litigiousness, her illegal medicinal products, her ropey qualifications, her abusiveness, despite her making the wounded and obese cry on television, despite her apparently misunderstanding some of the most basic aspects of GCSE biology, while doling out “scientific” advice in a white coat, despite her farcical “academic” work, despite the unpleasantness of the food she endorses, there are still many who will claim: “You can say what you like about McKeith, but she has improved the nation’s diet.”
Let me be very clear. Anyone who tells you to eat your greens is all right by me. If that was the end of it, I’d be McKeith’s biggest fan, because I’m all in favour of “evidence-based interventions to improve the nation’s health”, as they used to say to us in medical school.
But let’s look at the evidence. Diet has been studied very extensively, and there are some things that we know with a fair degree of certainty: there is convincing evidence that diets rich in fresh fruit and vegetables, with natural sources of dietary fibre, avoiding obesity, moderate alcohol, and physical exercise, are protective against things such as cancer and heart disease.
But nutritionists don’t stop there, because they can’t: they have to manufacture complication, to justify the existence of their profession. And what an extraordinary new profession it is. They’ve appeared out of nowhere, with a strong new-age bent, but dressing themselves up in the cloak of scientific authority. Because there is, of course, a genuine body of research about nutrition and health, to which these new “nutritionists” are spectacularly unreliable witnesses. You don’t get sober professors from the Medical Research Council’s Human Nutrition Research Unit on telly talking about the evidence on food and health; you get the media nutritionists. It’s like the difference between astrology and astronomy.
These new nutritionists have a major commercial problem with evidence. There’s nothing very professional or proprietary about “eat your greens”, so they have had to push things further: but unfortunately for the nutritionists, the technical, confusing, overcomplicated, tinkering interventions that they promote are very frequently not supported by convincing evidence.
And that’s not for lack of looking. This is not about the medical hegemony neglecting to address the holistic needs of the people. In many cases, the research has been done, and we know that the more specific claims of nutritionists are actively wrong.
I’ve got too much sense to subject you to reams of scientific detail – I’ve learned from McKeith that you need theatrical abuse to hold the public’s attention – but we can easily do one representative example. The antioxidant story is one of the most ubiquitous health claims of the nutritionists. Antioxidants mop up free radicals, so in theory, looking at metabolism flow charts in biochemistry textbooks, having more of them might be beneficial to health. High blood levels of antioxidants were associated, in the 1980s, with longer life. Fruit and vegetables have lots of antioxidants, and fruit and veg really are good for you. So it all made sense.
But when you do compare people taking antioxidant supplement tablets with people on placebo, there’s no benefit; if anything, the antioxidant pills are harmful. Fruit and veg are still good for you, but as you can see, it looks as if it’s complicated and it might not just be about the extra antioxidants. It’s a surprising finding, but that’s science all over: the results are often counterintuitive. And that’s exactly why you do scientific research, to check your assumptions. Otherwise it wouldn’t be called “science”, it would be called “assuming”, or “guessing”, or “making it up as you go along”.
But don’t get distracted. Basic, sensible dietary advice, that we all know – be honest – still stands. It’s the unjustified, self-serving and unnecessary overcomplication of this basic sensible dietary advice that is, to my mind, one of the greatest crimes of the nutritionist movement. I don’t think it’s excessive to talk about consumers paralysed with confusion in supermarkets.
Although it’s just as likely that they will be paralysed with fear, because McKeith’s stock in trade is abuse, on a scale that would have any doctor struck off: making people cry for the television cameras, I assume deliberately, and using fear and bullying to get them to change their lifestyles. As a posture it is seductive, it has a sense of generating movement, but if you drag yourself away from the theatricality of souped-up recipe and lifestyle shows on telly, the evidence shows that scare campaigns tend not to get people changing their behaviour in the long term.
So what can you do? There’s the rub. In reality, again, away from the cameras, the most significant “lifestyle” cause of death and disease is social class. Here’s a perfect example. I rent a flat in London’s Kentish Town on my modest junior doctor’s salary (don’t believe what you read in the papers about doctors’ wages, either). This is a very poor working-class area, and the male life expectancy is about 70 years. Two miles away in Hampstead, meanwhile, where the millionaire Dr Gillian McKeith PhD owns a very large property, surrounded by other wealthy middle-class people, male life expectancy is almost 80 years. I know this because I have the Annual Public Health Report for Camden open on the table right now.
This phenomenal disparity in life expectancy – the difference between a lengthy and rich retirement, and a very truncated one indeed – is not because the people in Hampstead are careful to eat a handful of Brazil nuts every day, to make sure they’re not deficient in selenium, as per nutritionists’ advice.
And that’s the most sinister feature of the whole nutritionist project, graphically exemplified by McKeith: it’s a manifesto of rightwing individualism – you are what you eat, and people die young because they deserve it. They choose death, through ignorance and laziness, but you choose life, fresh fish, olive oil, and that’s why you’re healthy. You’re going to see 78. You deserve it. Not like them.
How can I be sure that this phenomenal difference in life expectancy between rich and poor isn’t due to the difference in diet? Because I’ve read the dietary intervention studies: when you intervene and make a huge effort to change people’s diets, and get them eating more fruit and veg, you find the benefits, where they are positive at all, are actually very modest. Nothing like 10 years.
But genuine public health interventions to address the real social and lifestyle causes of disease are far less lucrative, and far less of a spectacle, than anything a food crank or a TV producer would ever dream of dipping into. What prime-time TV series looks at food deserts created by giant supermarket chains, the very companies with which stellar media nutritionists so often have lucrative commercial contracts? What show deals with social inequality driving health inequality? Where’s the human interest in prohibiting the promotion of bad foods; facilitating access to nutrient-rich foods with taxation; or maintaining a clear labelling system? Where is the spectacle in “enabling environments” that naturally promote exercise, or urban planning that prioritises cyclists, pedestrians and public transport over the car? Or reducing the ever-increasing inequality between senior executive and shop-floor pay?
This is serious stuff. We don’t need any more stupid ideas about health in the world. We have a president of South Africa who has denied that HIV exists, we have mumps and measles on the rise, we have quackery in the ascendant like never before, and whatever Tony Blair might have to say about homoeopathy being a fight not worth fighting for scientists, we cannot indulge portions of pseudoscientific ludicrousness as if they don’t have wider ramifications for society, and for the public misunderstanding of science.
I am writing this article, sneakily, late, at the back of the room, in the Royal College of Physicians, at a conference discussing how to free up access to medical academic knowledge for the public. At the front, as I type, Sir Muir Gray, director of the NHS National Electronic Library For Health, is speaking: “Ignorance is like cholera,” he says. “It cannot be controlled by the individual alone: it requires the organised efforts of society.” He’s right: in the 19th and 20th centuries, we made huge advances through the provision of clean, clear water; and in the 21st century, clean, clear information will produce those same advances.
Gillian McKeith has nothing to contribute: and Channel 4, which bent over backwards to dress her up in the cloak of scientific authority, should be ashamed of itself.
‘With all due respect, you’re wrong’: When McKeith put a cabbie in his place
Here is a bizarre story, which McKeith is evidently proud of, because not only does she recount it in her book, she has also recounted it in other published articles. She is in a cab, and the cab driver has spotted her, and tries to spark up a conversation:
“As I sat down to enjoy the ride and sighed a sense of relief in honour of some quiet time, I barely heard some mumbling from Harry to break a much cherished silence. Ignoring it to soak in the rapidly moving scenery, I heard it again … ‘You know, fish has more omegas than flax,’ he stated. ‘I beg your pardon,’ I said. ‘I said that fish has more omegas than flax seeds,’ he re-stated. The only thing I could think of was: ‘Why was this invasive, somewhat jovial, but truly kind man, talking about flax …’ ‘In all due respect, you’re wrong, Harry.
Flax seeds contain far greater levels of the healthy oils (omega-3 and omega-6) in a properly balanced and assimilable form,’ I explained. ‘No, I disagree,’ he argued. ‘What do you mean, you disagree? Have you spent years conducting clinical research, working with patients, lecturing, teaching, studying the omega oils in flax, obtaining worldwide data, compiling one of the largest private health libraries on the planet, and writing extensively on the topic?’ I asked. Not to mention writing this very article on this very day.
‘No,’ Harry feebly replied. I wondered, ‘Are you a scientist, a biochemist, a botanist, or have you spent a lifetime studying food and biochemistry as I have done?’ ‘No,’ he again replied. ‘So, where do you get such stuff? Where is your scientific authority?’ I demanded. Harry proudly announced: ‘Oh, my wife is a doctor – a gynaecologist – by the way.’ ‘Is she a food specialist or nutritional biochemist as well?’ I quickly retorted. ‘Um, ah, well, no, but she is a doctor,’ he offered.”
Charming. But flax seeds contain oestrogenic compounds, and fibre, so they’re not very “assimilable” unless you crush them, in which case they taste foul, and they’re sold as a laxative in doses of 15g. And you will need a lot of them. When you account for the poor conversion in the body from plant-form omega oils to the animal forms that are most beneficial (called DHA and EPA) then flax seeds and fish contain roughly the same amounts.
But in the real world, rather than the raw figures, it’s very easy to eat 100g of mackerel, whereas it’s tricky to get a tablespoon of flax seed into you. (Similarly, parsley is a rich source of vitamin C, but you’re not going to eat an orange sized lump of it.) As for “properly balanced”, I don’t know if she means spiritually or biologically, but fish is much higher in omega-3, which most people would say is better.
So… O frabjous day. And it’s all thanks to a badscience regular who wishes to remain anonymous. We could do with more of your sort, come and play in the badscience.net forums if you’re in a motivated mood, where there are some fun plots being hatched in the new activism room. Hurrah!
McKeith’s responses:
Lots of bits of media from this, the fun ones are where Max Clifford responds to my 4,500 word research-heavy torpedo of her science and bullying by saying I’m jealous of her money. Lots more of these kicking around, I’ll bung them up when I get the chance, this from Irish radio, another from Radio 4.
badscience.net/files/gillian_ire_radio.mp3
Also I see she’s been suggesting the ASA draft ruling was about her being a medical doctor: this is not so, the ASA draft ruling, of which I have a copy, says very clearly: “We considered that people would expect the term “Dr” in the leaflet to refer to a medical qualification, or to a doctorate from a UK university or accredited insitution [my italics].”
Debunking the Myth Of the Fat Burning Zone
Many exercisers are under the mistaken impression that fat is only burned at specific exercise intensities and hence weight loss will only occur if you always exercise at these moderate effort levels. Nothing could be further from the truth! Losing body fat and keeping it off permanently requires a carefully planned exercise program that features aerobic AND anaerobic workouts, as well as careful attention to diet and performance nutrition.
Fat is used for fuel during exercise at a variety of intensity levels. At rest and at moderate heart rates, your body's preferred fuel choice is fat. As exercise intensity increases, you burn progressively more glucose. At anaerobic threshold heart rates, you burn almost entirely glucose and very little fat.
How AEROBIC Workouts Promote Fat Loss
To achieve permanent weight management, you must TRAIN your body to prefer fat for fuel 24 hours a day. This is accomplished by building an aerobic base. Your body is like a computer: when you train it to burn fat during low intensity aerobic workouts, it learns to do this around the clock. You must also fuel your body with healthy, nutritious foods at the right times to prevent metabolism problems that result from exercise-induced caloric depletion. The main mistake people make is restricting calories at crucial times: before, during and after workouts. Restricting calories and training will NOT result in permanent fat loss - it will result in energy level fluctuations, poor recovery and increased stress response to workouts. When you eat healthy, supplement properly and build a strong aerobic base, you are ready to enjoy the fitness and weight loss benefits that anaerobic workouts provide.
How ANAEROBIC Workouts Promote Fat Loss
Even though you are not burning much fat during a high intensity workout, these workouts are still crucial to the success of your weight loss exercise goals. The intensity of anaerobic exercise stimulates an increased demand for calories and an elevated body temperature. These factors generate an increase in your metabolic rate (the rate at which you burn calories) that lasts for several hours after your workout. Since your preferred fuel choice at rest is fat, you will burn more fat around the clock because of your glucose-burning workout! However wonderful this sounds, many exercisers take shortcuts that sabotage the weight loss benefits of high intensity workouts.The round-the-clock increase in metabolism caused by an effective training program is the only true way to lose weight. Consider that during a vigorous hour of exercise, you burn between 500-800 calories. A tall glass of orange juice and a bran muffin get you nearly back to even. Many exercisers skip the aerobic base training and go right for the high intensity workouts. When you ignore base training OR engage in too many anaerobic workouts, your body learns to prefer sugar for fuel (like a computer, remember?) 24-hours a day. Excessive anaerobic training compromises your fat burning system and causes you to crave sugar, especially at night. Fat stays on your body and your brain tells you to consume sugar all day!
But what if you don’t consume sugar all day?
What if your will power can beat the sugar cravings?
Food Cravings and How to Beat Them
Cravings can be defined as the intense longing for a particular type of food and are something that more than 60% of the population have had. Are these “all in the head” or is there some explanation to why we crave?
Nutritional Reasons
It may be that some cravings are related to nutrition. This is certainly true when it comes to carbohydrates and low blood sugar. Low blood sugar can affect appetite fairly quickly, leaving you hungry and craving carbohydrate type foods. This doesn’t explain cravings for high fat sugary foods in place of carbohydrates such as pasta or potatoes.
It is likely that the craving for high fat, sugary foods is due to the palatability of these. Fat helps carry flavour, which is why high fat foods taste good. Sweetness is a flavour that humans were born liking, while other flavours are acquired.
Dieter’s Cravings
Food cravings are also common in dieters. Diets often focus on deprivation of certain foods and cravings for “forbidden” foods become strong, particularly because the food is labelled as “forbidden. When resistance to temptation gives way, guilt more than often follows. To avoid this situation, don’t label foods. Look for smart alternatives. For example, when craving fries, don’t go for fast food, buy a packet of oven bake low fat fries and have a small portion.
How to Beat Cravings
The trick is not to beat it, but to go with it in a more healthy way. Saying no when you really feel like something is likely to resolve in a binge later on. A good tip is to wait 20 minuets. If you’re still having a craving, allow yourself to have a small portion. For example, a mini candy bar rather than a giant one. This will give you a taste without going overboard on fat and calories. Another tip is to find a healthier alternative for your craving. Feel like something crunchy and salty? Instead of chips, go for a small handful of pretzels. Although these are still high in salt, they are low in fat.
Watching your portion size and swapping choices will allow a little taste without going overboard.
Fat is used for fuel during exercise at a variety of intensity levels. At rest and at moderate heart rates, your body's preferred fuel choice is fat. As exercise intensity increases, you burn progressively more glucose. At anaerobic threshold heart rates, you burn almost entirely glucose and very little fat.
How AEROBIC Workouts Promote Fat Loss
To achieve permanent weight management, you must TRAIN your body to prefer fat for fuel 24 hours a day. This is accomplished by building an aerobic base. Your body is like a computer: when you train it to burn fat during low intensity aerobic workouts, it learns to do this around the clock. You must also fuel your body with healthy, nutritious foods at the right times to prevent metabolism problems that result from exercise-induced caloric depletion. The main mistake people make is restricting calories at crucial times: before, during and after workouts. Restricting calories and training will NOT result in permanent fat loss - it will result in energy level fluctuations, poor recovery and increased stress response to workouts. When you eat healthy, supplement properly and build a strong aerobic base, you are ready to enjoy the fitness and weight loss benefits that anaerobic workouts provide.
How ANAEROBIC Workouts Promote Fat Loss
Even though you are not burning much fat during a high intensity workout, these workouts are still crucial to the success of your weight loss exercise goals. The intensity of anaerobic exercise stimulates an increased demand for calories and an elevated body temperature. These factors generate an increase in your metabolic rate (the rate at which you burn calories) that lasts for several hours after your workout. Since your preferred fuel choice at rest is fat, you will burn more fat around the clock because of your glucose-burning workout! However wonderful this sounds, many exercisers take shortcuts that sabotage the weight loss benefits of high intensity workouts.The round-the-clock increase in metabolism caused by an effective training program is the only true way to lose weight. Consider that during a vigorous hour of exercise, you burn between 500-800 calories. A tall glass of orange juice and a bran muffin get you nearly back to even. Many exercisers skip the aerobic base training and go right for the high intensity workouts. When you ignore base training OR engage in too many anaerobic workouts, your body learns to prefer sugar for fuel (like a computer, remember?) 24-hours a day. Excessive anaerobic training compromises your fat burning system and causes you to crave sugar, especially at night. Fat stays on your body and your brain tells you to consume sugar all day!
But what if you don’t consume sugar all day?
What if your will power can beat the sugar cravings?
Food Cravings and How to Beat Them
Cravings can be defined as the intense longing for a particular type of food and are something that more than 60% of the population have had. Are these “all in the head” or is there some explanation to why we crave?
Nutritional Reasons
It may be that some cravings are related to nutrition. This is certainly true when it comes to carbohydrates and low blood sugar. Low blood sugar can affect appetite fairly quickly, leaving you hungry and craving carbohydrate type foods. This doesn’t explain cravings for high fat sugary foods in place of carbohydrates such as pasta or potatoes.
It is likely that the craving for high fat, sugary foods is due to the palatability of these. Fat helps carry flavour, which is why high fat foods taste good. Sweetness is a flavour that humans were born liking, while other flavours are acquired.
Dieter’s Cravings
Food cravings are also common in dieters. Diets often focus on deprivation of certain foods and cravings for “forbidden” foods become strong, particularly because the food is labelled as “forbidden. When resistance to temptation gives way, guilt more than often follows. To avoid this situation, don’t label foods. Look for smart alternatives. For example, when craving fries, don’t go for fast food, buy a packet of oven bake low fat fries and have a small portion.
How to Beat Cravings
The trick is not to beat it, but to go with it in a more healthy way. Saying no when you really feel like something is likely to resolve in a binge later on. A good tip is to wait 20 minuets. If you’re still having a craving, allow yourself to have a small portion. For example, a mini candy bar rather than a giant one. This will give you a taste without going overboard on fat and calories. Another tip is to find a healthier alternative for your craving. Feel like something crunchy and salty? Instead of chips, go for a small handful of pretzels. Although these are still high in salt, they are low in fat.
Watching your portion size and swapping choices will allow a little taste without going overboard.
Friday 8 October 2010
Running Hurts
The Truth is that Running Hurts.
No one gets faster without meeting their personal pain barrier straight on. No amount of junk miles, fun runs or affirmations are going to get you over the hill at the five mile mark in a 10k. However, what will pull you through is solid prep with hard hill runs and interval work.
No one gets faster without meeting their personal pain barrier straight on. No amount of junk miles, fun runs or affirmations are going to get you over the hill at the five mile mark in a 10k. However, what will pull you through is solid prep with hard hill runs and interval work.
Thursday 30 September 2010
I'm back, and I am going to be stronger than ever.
What we do, defines us.
I've been away for a couple of months, I'm sure you've all missed my pearls of wisdom. Or not, whatever.
So, here is the story:
Roughly 8 weeks ago and while playing cricket, I was struck with the ball during my batting innings. It was quite a big impact and the ball proceeded to travel across the boundary rope for four runs after connecting with the right side of my noggin.
The following day, i was due to fly to Barcelona which I did and while there was greeted with the most painful, intense of all headaches upon landing. I continued without a thought as I always do with medical issues that do not prevent me from moving. I worked all of Sunday and fell into a well deserved sleep Sunday evening.
Monday morning, I woke and was greeted to the continued headache and a bleeding inner ear. I had a shower, collapsed in the shower and woke a few minutes later. At this point I became increasingly concerned, I completed my work in Barcelona and flew home with a matter of urgency to see my Doctor.
I arrived at my Doctors surgery and he referred me to a specialist immediately, after a few scans and some poking and prodding I was told "Remain in hospital and we'll monitor the severity of your condition before taking action." I should say that at this point I had not been informed of any possible condition or injury.
I was going insane, I left the hospital shortly afterwards and while signing large quantities of disclaimers decided that I had to help myself if I was going to get any answers.
I did just that, I researched possible conditions, experts in their field and made my way to the neuro centre of my private health company and insisted to put in contact with Dr x who I was sure would be of assistance. He was, I owe him my life and large proportion of my sanity. Dr x is a leading consultant within neurosurgery and informed me after more scans, tests and examinations that I had a Subdural Heamotoma.
A subdural hematoma or subdural haematoma (British English), also known as a subdural hemorrhage (SDH), is a type of hematoma, a form of traumatic brain injury in which blood gathers within the outermost meningeal layer, between the dura mater, which adheres to the skull, and the arachnoid mater enveloping the brain. Usually resulting from tears in veins that cross the subdural space, subdural hemorrhages may cause an increase in intracranial pressure (ICP), which can cause compression of and damage to delicate brain tissue. Subdural hematomas are often life-threatening when acute, but chronic subdural hematomas are usually not deadly if treated.
I was subsequently operated upon two weeks ago. Due to British regulations, we were unable to obtain a license to have my favored procedure done in the UK as it is not accredited here. I therefore travelled to Switzerland where I met two surgeons from an institute in America who performed the surgery. I use the term favored procedure as my options were as follows:
I'm excited.
I've been away for a couple of months, I'm sure you've all missed my pearls of wisdom. Or not, whatever.
So, here is the story:
Roughly 8 weeks ago and while playing cricket, I was struck with the ball during my batting innings. It was quite a big impact and the ball proceeded to travel across the boundary rope for four runs after connecting with the right side of my noggin.
The following day, i was due to fly to Barcelona which I did and while there was greeted with the most painful, intense of all headaches upon landing. I continued without a thought as I always do with medical issues that do not prevent me from moving. I worked all of Sunday and fell into a well deserved sleep Sunday evening.
Monday morning, I woke and was greeted to the continued headache and a bleeding inner ear. I had a shower, collapsed in the shower and woke a few minutes later. At this point I became increasingly concerned, I completed my work in Barcelona and flew home with a matter of urgency to see my Doctor.
I arrived at my Doctors surgery and he referred me to a specialist immediately, after a few scans and some poking and prodding I was told "Remain in hospital and we'll monitor the severity of your condition before taking action." I should say that at this point I had not been informed of any possible condition or injury.
I was going insane, I left the hospital shortly afterwards and while signing large quantities of disclaimers decided that I had to help myself if I was going to get any answers.
I did just that, I researched possible conditions, experts in their field and made my way to the neuro centre of my private health company and insisted to put in contact with Dr x who I was sure would be of assistance. He was, I owe him my life and large proportion of my sanity. Dr x is a leading consultant within neurosurgery and informed me after more scans, tests and examinations that I had a Subdural Heamotoma.
A subdural hematoma or subdural haematoma (British English), also known as a subdural hemorrhage (SDH), is a type of hematoma, a form of traumatic brain injury in which blood gathers within the outermost meningeal layer, between the dura mater, which adheres to the skull, and the arachnoid mater enveloping the brain. Usually resulting from tears in veins that cross the subdural space, subdural hemorrhages may cause an increase in intracranial pressure (ICP), which can cause compression of and damage to delicate brain tissue. Subdural hematomas are often life-threatening when acute, but chronic subdural hematomas are usually not deadly if treated.
I was subsequently operated upon two weeks ago. Due to British regulations, we were unable to obtain a license to have my favored procedure done in the UK as it is not accredited here. I therefore travelled to Switzerland where I met two surgeons from an institute in America who performed the surgery. I use the term favored procedure as my options were as follows:
- Regular drainage for the remainder of life to ensure pressures never build to high. (Permanent plugged hole in head and life affecting ramifications)
- Open brain surgery, removal and cauterisation of Heamotoma. (12 weeks in intensive care following operation and risk of irreversible damage to my shape and facial recognition processing capabilities)
- A new, innovative, non invasive, rapid recovery and 100% success rate from survivors. (Little known about long term affects and three from fifty six people have died during surgery)
I'm excited.
Wednesday 28 July 2010
Personal Trainer Vs Gym Membership
Emphasis on fitness is in the limelight like never before. Size zero is in vogue and the uber lean, skinny models and movie stars have gained the status of demi-gods. With this passion for looking good and the desire to keep up with the current fashion, people have started focusing on fitness and are ready to spend to achieve that perfect body. In chasing dreams of the lean, toned look, people are in a mad rush to join a gym and workout extremely hard.
However, all this media hype for toned bodies and high fashion has started a positive train of thought in people. As a result of this increased awareness, people are turning health conscious and cutting down on junk food. Packaged food is being replaced by fresh, home made food which is of high nutritional value. Vegetarianism has touched the lives of people around the globe. In addition to all this, a five day workout at the gym has become a vital part of the daily routine. In fact so much that office-goers utilise some part of their lunch break to get a quick, sweaty workout.
With this entire fetish for exercise and workouts, fitness centers have become jam packed with people. A gym is not so beneficial as compared to getting a personal trainer for oneself. In the former, one gets puzzled as to where to begin with so many equipments to work upon. Also, the individual may not use the correct posture or may use the equipment in the wrong way, which will result in not having the desirable effect on the body. Time is a crucial factor too, since not everyone can spend hours at the gym. In such a scenario, it becomes tough to choose the right equipment, as one cannot use all the machinery daily. This results in a half-baked, poor workout schedule.
To solve this problem, a personal trainer is any day a better choice than enrolling in a gym. A fitness trainer would guide you through all the exercises and the prime focus becomes the individual. Also, he would design specific workouts which have high quality effect. With his vast knowledge, you would have the best of combinations of various exercises like strength training and cardio, which burn fat at a rapid rate. If you are strapped for time, he would make you do a particular set of exercises with more repetitions which would consume lesser time. Exercises at gym do not give out the proper result, if the correct sequence of using the equipments is not followed.
Lifting weights, without a proper trainer is risky as it can cause damage to the spinal cord or a injury. A good personal trainer would mix cardio exercises with rejuvenating activities like aerobics, yoga. On contrary to workouts at gym, this would make the workout fun and cut out boredom. If you have a particular problem like back ache or arthritis, he would carefully avoid all those exercises which may cause it to aggravate further. Instead he would introduce into your workout, different exercises which would give the same benefits as those exercises to be avoided would give. This makes it different from working out in a gym, as one may get puzzled about the exact function of a piece of equipment.
In a nutshell, the variety and uniqueness of workouts performed will have a good effect on the body. As you exercise with interest and enthusiasm, soon the results will start showing on your body. Whereas a dull and drab workout at a gym may not give the required result, the zeal to exercise doubles if done with a personal trainer, who is the constant source of guidance.
So, walk down the fitness trail to be healthy, fit and fine.
However, all this media hype for toned bodies and high fashion has started a positive train of thought in people. As a result of this increased awareness, people are turning health conscious and cutting down on junk food. Packaged food is being replaced by fresh, home made food which is of high nutritional value. Vegetarianism has touched the lives of people around the globe. In addition to all this, a five day workout at the gym has become a vital part of the daily routine. In fact so much that office-goers utilise some part of their lunch break to get a quick, sweaty workout.
With this entire fetish for exercise and workouts, fitness centers have become jam packed with people. A gym is not so beneficial as compared to getting a personal trainer for oneself. In the former, one gets puzzled as to where to begin with so many equipments to work upon. Also, the individual may not use the correct posture or may use the equipment in the wrong way, which will result in not having the desirable effect on the body. Time is a crucial factor too, since not everyone can spend hours at the gym. In such a scenario, it becomes tough to choose the right equipment, as one cannot use all the machinery daily. This results in a half-baked, poor workout schedule.
To solve this problem, a personal trainer is any day a better choice than enrolling in a gym. A fitness trainer would guide you through all the exercises and the prime focus becomes the individual. Also, he would design specific workouts which have high quality effect. With his vast knowledge, you would have the best of combinations of various exercises like strength training and cardio, which burn fat at a rapid rate. If you are strapped for time, he would make you do a particular set of exercises with more repetitions which would consume lesser time. Exercises at gym do not give out the proper result, if the correct sequence of using the equipments is not followed.
Lifting weights, without a proper trainer is risky as it can cause damage to the spinal cord or a injury. A good personal trainer would mix cardio exercises with rejuvenating activities like aerobics, yoga. On contrary to workouts at gym, this would make the workout fun and cut out boredom. If you have a particular problem like back ache or arthritis, he would carefully avoid all those exercises which may cause it to aggravate further. Instead he would introduce into your workout, different exercises which would give the same benefits as those exercises to be avoided would give. This makes it different from working out in a gym, as one may get puzzled about the exact function of a piece of equipment.
In a nutshell, the variety and uniqueness of workouts performed will have a good effect on the body. As you exercise with interest and enthusiasm, soon the results will start showing on your body. Whereas a dull and drab workout at a gym may not give the required result, the zeal to exercise doubles if done with a personal trainer, who is the constant source of guidance.
So, walk down the fitness trail to be healthy, fit and fine.
Monday 19 July 2010
The Fat Burning Zone
Debunking the Myth Of the Fat Burning Zone
Many exercisers are under the mistaken impression that fat is only burned at specific exercise intensities and hence weight loss will only occur if you always exercise at these moderate effort levels. Nothing could be further from the truth! Losing body fat and keeping it off permanently requires a carefully planned exercise program that features aerobic AND anaerobic workouts, as well as careful attention to diet and performance nutrition.
Fat is used for fuel during exercise at a variety of intensity levels. At rest and at moderate heart rates, your body's preferred fuel choice is fat. As exercise intensity increases, you burn progressively more glucose. At anaerobic threshold heart rates, you burn almost entirely glucose and very little fat.
How AEROBIC Workouts Promote Fat Loss
To achieve permanent weight management, you must TRAIN your body to prefer fat for fuel 24 hours a day. This is accomplished by building an aerobic base. Your body is like a computer: when you train it to burn fat during low intensity aerobic workouts, it learns to do this around the clock.
You must also fuel your body with healthy, nutritious foods at the right times to prevent metabolism problems that result from exercise-induced caloric depletion. The main mistake people make is restricting calories at crucial times: before, during and after workouts. Restricting calories and training will NOT result in permanent fat loss - it will result in energy level fluctuations, poor recovery and increased stress response to workouts.
When you eat healthy, supplement properly and build a strong aerobic base, you are ready to enjoy the fitness and weight loss benefits that anaerobic workouts provide.
How ANAEROBIC Workouts Promote Fat Loss
Even though you are not burning much fat during a high intensity workout, these workouts are still crucial to the success of your weight loss exercise goals.
The intensity of anaerobic exercise stimulates an increased demand for calories and an elevated body temperature. These factors generate an increase in your metabolic rate (the rate at which you burn calories) that lasts for several hours after your workout.
Since your preferred fuel choice at rest is fat, you will burn more fat around the clock because of your glucose-burning workout! However wonderful this sounds, many exercisers take shortcuts that sabotage the weight loss benefits of high intensity workouts.
The round-the-clock increase in metabolism caused by an effective training program is the only true way to lose weight. Consider that during a vigorous hour of exercise, you burn between 500-800 calories. A tall glass of orange juice and a bran muffin get you nearly back to even.
Many exercisers skip the aerobic base training and go right for the high intensity workouts. When you ignore base training OR engage in too many anaerobic workouts, your body learns to prefer sugar for fuel (like a computer, remember?) 24-hours a day.
Excessive anaerobic training compromises your fat burning system and causes you to crave sugar, especially at night. Fat stays on your body and your brain tells you to consume sugar all day!
But what if you don’t consume sugar all day?
What if your will power can beat the sugar cravings?
Food Cravings and How to Beat Them
Cravings can be defined as the intense longing for a particular type of food and are something that more than 60% of the population have had. Are these “all in the head” or is there some explanation to why we crave?
Nutritional Reasons
It may be that some cravings are related to nutrition. This is certainly true when it comes to carbohydrates and low blood sugar. Low blood sugar can affect appetite fairly quickly, leaving you hungry and craving carbohydrate type foods. This doesn’t explain cravings for high fat sugary foods in place of carbohydrates such as pasta or potatoes.
It is likely that the craving for high fat, sugary foods is due to the palatability of these. Fat helps carry flavour, which is why high fat foods taste good. Sweetness is a flavour that humans were born liking, while other flavours are acquired.
Dieter’s Cravings
Food cravings are also common in dieters. Diets often focus on deprivation of certain foods and cravings for “forbidden” foods become strong, particularly because the food is labelled as “forbidden. When resistance to temptation gives way, guilt more than often follows. To avoid this situation, don’t label foods. Look for smart alternatives. For example, when craving fries, don’t go for fast food, buy a packet of oven bake low fat fries and have a small portion.
How to Beat Cravings
The trick is not to beat it, but to go with it in a more healthy way. Saying no when you really feel like something is likely to resolve in a binge later on. A good tip is to wait 20 minuets. If you’re still having a craving, allow yourself to have a small portion. For example, a mini candy bar rather than a giant one. This will give you a taste without going overboard on fat and calories. Another tip is to find a healthier alternative for your craving. Feel like something crunchy and salty? Instead of chips, go for a small handful of pretzels. Although these are still high in salt, they are low in fat.
Watching your portion size and swapping choices will allow a little taste without going overboard.
Good Luck.
Many exercisers are under the mistaken impression that fat is only burned at specific exercise intensities and hence weight loss will only occur if you always exercise at these moderate effort levels. Nothing could be further from the truth! Losing body fat and keeping it off permanently requires a carefully planned exercise program that features aerobic AND anaerobic workouts, as well as careful attention to diet and performance nutrition.
Fat is used for fuel during exercise at a variety of intensity levels. At rest and at moderate heart rates, your body's preferred fuel choice is fat. As exercise intensity increases, you burn progressively more glucose. At anaerobic threshold heart rates, you burn almost entirely glucose and very little fat.
How AEROBIC Workouts Promote Fat Loss
To achieve permanent weight management, you must TRAIN your body to prefer fat for fuel 24 hours a day. This is accomplished by building an aerobic base. Your body is like a computer: when you train it to burn fat during low intensity aerobic workouts, it learns to do this around the clock.
You must also fuel your body with healthy, nutritious foods at the right times to prevent metabolism problems that result from exercise-induced caloric depletion. The main mistake people make is restricting calories at crucial times: before, during and after workouts. Restricting calories and training will NOT result in permanent fat loss - it will result in energy level fluctuations, poor recovery and increased stress response to workouts.
When you eat healthy, supplement properly and build a strong aerobic base, you are ready to enjoy the fitness and weight loss benefits that anaerobic workouts provide.
How ANAEROBIC Workouts Promote Fat Loss
Even though you are not burning much fat during a high intensity workout, these workouts are still crucial to the success of your weight loss exercise goals.
The intensity of anaerobic exercise stimulates an increased demand for calories and an elevated body temperature. These factors generate an increase in your metabolic rate (the rate at which you burn calories) that lasts for several hours after your workout.
Since your preferred fuel choice at rest is fat, you will burn more fat around the clock because of your glucose-burning workout! However wonderful this sounds, many exercisers take shortcuts that sabotage the weight loss benefits of high intensity workouts.
The round-the-clock increase in metabolism caused by an effective training program is the only true way to lose weight. Consider that during a vigorous hour of exercise, you burn between 500-800 calories. A tall glass of orange juice and a bran muffin get you nearly back to even.
Many exercisers skip the aerobic base training and go right for the high intensity workouts. When you ignore base training OR engage in too many anaerobic workouts, your body learns to prefer sugar for fuel (like a computer, remember?) 24-hours a day.
Excessive anaerobic training compromises your fat burning system and causes you to crave sugar, especially at night. Fat stays on your body and your brain tells you to consume sugar all day!
But what if you don’t consume sugar all day?
What if your will power can beat the sugar cravings?
Food Cravings and How to Beat Them
Cravings can be defined as the intense longing for a particular type of food and are something that more than 60% of the population have had. Are these “all in the head” or is there some explanation to why we crave?
Nutritional Reasons
It may be that some cravings are related to nutrition. This is certainly true when it comes to carbohydrates and low blood sugar. Low blood sugar can affect appetite fairly quickly, leaving you hungry and craving carbohydrate type foods. This doesn’t explain cravings for high fat sugary foods in place of carbohydrates such as pasta or potatoes.
It is likely that the craving for high fat, sugary foods is due to the palatability of these. Fat helps carry flavour, which is why high fat foods taste good. Sweetness is a flavour that humans were born liking, while other flavours are acquired.
Dieter’s Cravings
Food cravings are also common in dieters. Diets often focus on deprivation of certain foods and cravings for “forbidden” foods become strong, particularly because the food is labelled as “forbidden. When resistance to temptation gives way, guilt more than often follows. To avoid this situation, don’t label foods. Look for smart alternatives. For example, when craving fries, don’t go for fast food, buy a packet of oven bake low fat fries and have a small portion.
How to Beat Cravings
The trick is not to beat it, but to go with it in a more healthy way. Saying no when you really feel like something is likely to resolve in a binge later on. A good tip is to wait 20 minuets. If you’re still having a craving, allow yourself to have a small portion. For example, a mini candy bar rather than a giant one. This will give you a taste without going overboard on fat and calories. Another tip is to find a healthier alternative for your craving. Feel like something crunchy and salty? Instead of chips, go for a small handful of pretzels. Although these are still high in salt, they are low in fat.
Watching your portion size and swapping choices will allow a little taste without going overboard.
Good Luck.
Thursday 17 June 2010
A letter to the media regarding 'A Man, His Bike and Some Crampons'
A Man, His Bike and Some Crampons
Dear Sir/Madam,
In May next year I will be undertaking the challenge of a lifetime, cycling from John o’Groats to Land’s End and climbing the three highest peaks of Scotland, England and Wales along the way. I will be taking on this challenge solo. The route totals over 1900km of cycling, 17km of climbing and with a vertical assent of 2963m it’s no mean feat.
Although this journey has been completed before, it has not been done under any significant time restraints. I have therefore set myself the challenge to reach Land’s End in less than ten days; the Guinness World Records have confirmed that this has never been attempted.
I am 23 years old, I have a degree in bio mechanics and I work with up and coming athletes providing training programs, support and education on a daily basis. I have chosen to dedicate this adventure to a charity close to my heart, SportsAid, which works with and provides funding for both able and disabled athletes, aged 12-18 years old. I have a target of £50,000 and with your assistance we will together help the next generation of young British sports men and women succeed. You can read more about SportsAid on their ‘About US’ page.
I believe that this event has the potential to be extremely successful and I think you will agree that I need a significant level of media promotion and publicity to make this possible. I am confident that with your media experience and coverage you have the ability to help me make this impact on an exponential scale.
Thank you for considering my request for your support. If you have any questions about the event ‘A Man, His Bike and Some Crampons’ please do not hesitate to call me. I hope that together we can make a really
positive impact and raise a really valuable sum of money for SportsAid.
Kind Regards
Matthew Page
Dear Sir/Madam,
In May next year I will be undertaking the challenge of a lifetime, cycling from John o’Groats to Land’s End and climbing the three highest peaks of Scotland, England and Wales along the way. I will be taking on this challenge solo. The route totals over 1900km of cycling, 17km of climbing and with a vertical assent of 2963m it’s no mean feat.
Although this journey has been completed before, it has not been done under any significant time restraints. I have therefore set myself the challenge to reach Land’s End in less than ten days; the Guinness World Records have confirmed that this has never been attempted.
I am 23 years old, I have a degree in bio mechanics and I work with up and coming athletes providing training programs, support and education on a daily basis. I have chosen to dedicate this adventure to a charity close to my heart, SportsAid, which works with and provides funding for both able and disabled athletes, aged 12-18 years old. I have a target of £50,000 and with your assistance we will together help the next generation of young British sports men and women succeed. You can read more about SportsAid on their ‘About US’ page.
I believe that this event has the potential to be extremely successful and I think you will agree that I need a significant level of media promotion and publicity to make this possible. I am confident that with your media experience and coverage you have the ability to help me make this impact on an exponential scale.
My contribution to SportsAid is important and well worth the effort. Your help with this would be invaluable, whether it be a small article, a news piece or some other form of promotion.
If you would like to join me in supporting this outstanding event, please reply to me and we can discuss the possibilities.
Thank you for considering my request for your support. If you have any questions about the event ‘A Man, His Bike and Some Crampons’ please do not hesitate to call me. I hope that together we can make a really
positive impact and raise a really valuable sum of money for SportsAid.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind Regards
Matthew Page
Wednesday 9 June 2010
A letter asking for help regarding 'A Man, His Bike and Some Crampons'
A Man, His Bike and Some Crampons
Dear Sir/Madam,
In May next year I will be undertaking the challenge of a lifetime, cycling from John o’Groats to Land’s End and climbing the three highest peaks of Scotland, England and Wales along the way. I will be taking on this challenge solo. The route totals over 1900km of cycling, 17km of climbing and with a vertical assent of 2963m it’s no mean feat.
Although this journey has been completed before, it has not been done under any significant time restraints. I have therefore set myself the challenge to reach Land’s End in less than ten days; the Guinness World Records have confirmed that this has never been attempted.
I am 23 years old, I have a degree in bio mechanics and I work with up and coming athletes providing training programs, support and education on a daily basis. I have chosen to dedicate this adventure to a charity close to my heart, SportsAid, which works with and provides funding for both able and disabled athletes, aged 12-18 years old. I have a target of £50,000 and with your assistance we will together help the next generation of young British sports men and women succeed. You can read more about SportsAid on their ‘About US’ page.
I believe that this event has the potential to be extremely successful and I think you will agree that I need a significant level of media promotion and publicity to make this possible. I am confident that with your media experience and coverage you have the ability to help me make this impact on an exponential scale.
Thank you for considering my request for your support. If you have any questions about the event ‘A Man, His Bike and Some Crampons’ please do not hesitate to call me. I hope that together we can make a really positive impact and raise a really valuable sum of money for SportsAid.
Kind Regards
Dear Sir/Madam,
In May next year I will be undertaking the challenge of a lifetime, cycling from John o’Groats to Land’s End and climbing the three highest peaks of Scotland, England and Wales along the way. I will be taking on this challenge solo. The route totals over 1900km of cycling, 17km of climbing and with a vertical assent of 2963m it’s no mean feat.
Although this journey has been completed before, it has not been done under any significant time restraints. I have therefore set myself the challenge to reach Land’s End in less than ten days; the Guinness World Records have confirmed that this has never been attempted.
I am 23 years old, I have a degree in bio mechanics and I work with up and coming athletes providing training programs, support and education on a daily basis. I have chosen to dedicate this adventure to a charity close to my heart, SportsAid, which works with and provides funding for both able and disabled athletes, aged 12-18 years old. I have a target of £50,000 and with your assistance we will together help the next generation of young British sports men and women succeed. You can read more about SportsAid on their ‘About US’ page.
I believe that this event has the potential to be extremely successful and I think you will agree that I need a significant level of media promotion and publicity to make this possible. I am confident that with your media experience and coverage you have the ability to help me make this impact on an exponential scale.
My contribution to SportsAid is important and well worth the effort. Your help with this would be invaluable, whether it be a small article, a news piece or some other form of promotion.
If you would like to join me in supporting this outstanding event, please reply to me and we can discuss the possibilities.
Thank you for considering my request for your support. If you have any questions about the event ‘A Man, His Bike and Some Crampons’ please do not hesitate to call me. I hope that together we can make a really positive impact and raise a really valuable sum of money for SportsAid.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind Regards
Matthew Page
Friday 28 May 2010
Bodyweight Training
Bodyweight Training
Bodyweight training is one of the most effective ways to burn fat and build muscle. When our weight gets to a certain level many of us decide that we need to join the gym or purchase training equipment. However, it is actually possible to train using your own bodyweight and achieve similar results. Many people neglect the potential of bodyweight training and in this blog I intend to change that and make you aware of the benefits bodyweight training has to offer.
Bodyweight training can help improve your physique by starting with as little as 15-20 minutes work a day. As you get used to the training you should allocate more time which will in turn yield more impressive results. To ensure that you are getting adequate training time you need to make bodyweight training part of your daily schedule. Maybe you could get out of bed 20 minutes earlier or perhaps you could watch TV for 20 minutes less each day. As your bodyweight training progresses you should be able to come up with more creative ways to fit in your training times. If the appearance of your body is important to you then you will always be able to find the time. Stick with it, do it every day and you will begin to notice surprising results.
One of the main concerns with bodyweight training is the frequency with which you exercise. Many people think that you should exercise 3-4 times a week or every other day. This is partially true. People who participate in high intensity, high volume workouts require the additional rest between training and therefore should only train 3-4 times a week. However, bodyweight training is much less intensive. If you train for 15-20 minutes each day.
So now that I have introduced you to bodyweight training and its benefits you are probably wondering what do I actually do? Well there are plenty of exercises you can do but I’ve outlined one of my favourites below:
THE BURPEE CHIN UP COMBO:
- To begin stand under a chin up bar
- Slowly squat down, bending your knees and keeping your back straight.
- Place your hands on the floor in front of you.
- Kick back with your feet so that you are in a push up position.
- Do a push up.
- Jump your feet back under your chest and stand up rapidly.
- Grab the chin up bar with your palms facing towards you.
- Do a chin up.
- Squat back down and repeat.
Try and keep this up for 15 minutes and you will quickly realise how tough bodyweight training can be. If you do this exercise every morning you will start to notice changes within the week. It will help you burn fat and build muscle in a very short space of time.
Bodyweight training has almost limitless possibilities, it does not stop at this one exercise. If you get onto the BetterTrained website here http://www.bettertrained.co.uk/ there are lots of great bodyweight training ideas and plenty of advice and exercises that you can use in your own routine.
To progress with your bodyweight training set a feasible goal for each week. Once you achieve it set a new one for the next week. As long as you put in the effort you can burn fat and build muscle without attending the gym.
Bodyweight training is one of the most effective ways to burn fat and build muscle. When our weight gets to a certain level many of us decide that we need to join the gym or purchase training equipment. However, it is actually possible to train using your own bodyweight and achieve similar results. Many people neglect the potential of bodyweight training and in this blog I intend to change that and make you aware of the benefits bodyweight training has to offer.
Bodyweight training can help improve your physique by starting with as little as 15-20 minutes work a day. As you get used to the training you should allocate more time which will in turn yield more impressive results. To ensure that you are getting adequate training time you need to make bodyweight training part of your daily schedule. Maybe you could get out of bed 20 minutes earlier or perhaps you could watch TV for 20 minutes less each day. As your bodyweight training progresses you should be able to come up with more creative ways to fit in your training times. If the appearance of your body is important to you then you will always be able to find the time. Stick with it, do it every day and you will begin to notice surprising results.
One of the main concerns with bodyweight training is the frequency with which you exercise. Many people think that you should exercise 3-4 times a week or every other day. This is partially true. People who participate in high intensity, high volume workouts require the additional rest between training and therefore should only train 3-4 times a week. However, bodyweight training is much less intensive. If you train for 15-20 minutes each day.
So now that I have introduced you to bodyweight training and its benefits you are probably wondering what do I actually do? Well there are plenty of exercises you can do but I’ve outlined one of my favourites below:
THE BURPEE CHIN UP COMBO:
- To begin stand under a chin up bar
- Slowly squat down, bending your knees and keeping your back straight.
- Place your hands on the floor in front of you.
- Kick back with your feet so that you are in a push up position.
- Do a push up.
- Jump your feet back under your chest and stand up rapidly.
- Grab the chin up bar with your palms facing towards you.
- Do a chin up.
- Squat back down and repeat.
Try and keep this up for 15 minutes and you will quickly realise how tough bodyweight training can be. If you do this exercise every morning you will start to notice changes within the week. It will help you burn fat and build muscle in a very short space of time.
Bodyweight training has almost limitless possibilities, it does not stop at this one exercise. If you get onto the BetterTrained website here http://www.bettertrained.co.uk/ there are lots of great bodyweight training ideas and plenty of advice and exercises that you can use in your own routine.
To progress with your bodyweight training set a feasible goal for each week. Once you achieve it set a new one for the next week. As long as you put in the effort you can burn fat and build muscle without attending the gym.
Saturday 22 May 2010
Drop Pounds at the Pool
Drop Pounds at the Pool
A swimming pool -- the kind with lanes, not a swim-up bar -- triggers a negative twinge in many people. Too cold, too inconvenient, too wet, and that's too bad. Swimming gives you a great cardiovascular workout with none of the joint-jarring of running. You'll burn roughly the same number of calories per minute as you would cycling, without the traffic risks. You'll get a restorative workout that helps you come back strong in your other sports. And you'll develop that lean-and-powerful look that draws so many women to the TV when the Olympics are on.
Swimming builds functional strength, starting with your core muscles, back, chest, abdominals. People think it's about making your arms and legs strong, but those are simply extensions of what the core does when you swim properly. Problem is, many individuals can't swim properly -- they thrash, struggle, sink, and give up. Not you. Your swimming lesson, adult version, begins here.
You've seen those old guys who swim lap after lap after lap, never tiring. They're efficient. If you're out of breath after one lap, it's not that you lack "some sort of elusive or special swimming fitness." You're just inefficient.
* LEAD with the top of your head, not your forehead, for better head-spine alignment. Look at the bottom of the pool, not ahead.
* PUSH DOWN with your chest until your hips and legs feel light. That "sinking feeling" you may notice is just your legs and hips naturally riding lower in the water than your upper body. Pressing your chest down gives you better balance. With each stroke, press each armpit into the water.
* SLIP your arm into the water with each stroke as if you were sliding it into a sleeve. A longer body line reduces drag. Extend your arm until your shoulder touches your jaw.
* BE QUIET with your body. Waves indicate wasted effort. Imagine you're piercing the water and slipping through a small hole.
The Starter Swimming Workout
If you get winded, just hang on to the side; it's better than struggling with poor form. This 30-minute workout allows for lots of rest.
* SET 1: Swim 8 x 25 meters focusing on head and chest position, resting for five deep breaths after each length. Then swim 25, 50, 75, and 100m. (Take a five-breath rest after each distance.) Note how many strokes you take on the 25. Swim the remaining laps at a consistent effort, counting strokes. A tired swimmer uses more strokes.
* SET 2: Swim 8 x 25 with a focus on a longer body line. Then swim 100, 75, 50, and 25 yards. (Take the same rests as above.) Swim the 100 very easily. Count your strokes and divide by 4. That number serves as your benchmark for the rest of the set.
* SET 3: Swim 8 x 25 with a focus on "quiet" form. Then swim 25, 50, 75, and 100 yards. (Take the same rests as above.) Note the number of strokes you take on the 25. See if swimming quietly improves your efficiency.
Thursday 20 May 2010
Treadmills? Good, bad or indifferent?
Treadmills? Good, bad or indifferent?
If you are aiming to do an event running outside then you need to get used to running outside. A treadmill helps you run since there is a continual ‘pawing back’ motion through the belt. Effectively part of the running motion is done for you therefore you do not develop the strength through this section. You will over-develop some muscles relative to others which will make it feel increasingly harder for you to run outside if you get too used to a treadmill. It can be easy to convince yourself not to run outside when it is, say, raining hard or blowing a gale. But if you train for weeks or even months for one event only to wake up on that day and discover a downpour then what are you going to do?
Whether a long run for you is 30 minutes or 3 hours it can be really boring doing it on a treadmill. Running outside tends to pass quicker since you have a variety of views and terrain to keep you occupied. In addition, usually our longer runs are a training session for some kind of distance event so I refer back to the last point! Also consider long training runs for half or full marathons where you need to learn to drink and / or eat on the run. If you’re going to have to carry things in the event then the place to work out what is best for you is on a training run in similar conditions.
I usually include in my clients training programmes a regular ‘run as you feel’ run. This allows you to pull all your running training together. It may mean pushing hard up a hill because you feel strong or really letting the run stretch out on the flats because you feel flexible. It lets your body respond to its muscles and your fitness while allowing you to just enjoy running (which should be the number one reason we all do it!) with no fixed agenda or target. This is much harder to do on a treadmill as your legs respond to the pace of the machine, rather than your pace being a response of your mind and body.
A treadmill has a flat, smooth and bouncy surface. It doesn’t ‘feel’ the same as grass, sand, gravel or mud under your feet. If you are planning an event on non-road surfaces then you need to get used to running on these surfaces. It is good practice to run on various surfaces anyway since the differences in terrain gives your lower limbs a better strength and stability workout. This means all the supporting, smaller muscles around your ankles and knees are worked more, making them stronger and keeping you more resistant to injury.
Running outside to some extent will strengthen your muscles up but from time to time we can suffer from injuries and niggles. If you have had a set back then it is often worth building your running back up on a treadmill, especially if the injury has been caused by the impact of running. Treadmills nowadays all have shock absorbers to lessen the impact. In addition it is easier to just stop the session completely if needs be when you are on a treadmill, than if you are outside and discover you can’t run anymore when you are 3 miles from home!
If you run mainly for fitness or you do a lot of cross training then you may want to just include a short running section within an overall cardiovascular workout. Logistically it makes much more common sense to just do 10-15 minutes on the treadmill than to ‘faff’ about going outside, coming back in and so on!
Save yourself a broken leg and use the treadmill instead!
I’m often asked whether it is ok to run on a treadmill rather than outside. My answer is usually different to each person because it depends why they are asking me the question. There are pros and cons for each. So here are my general thoughts on the subject:
Running outside is better than running on a treadmill when:
You plan to do or have entered a running event
Running outside is better than running on a treadmill when:
You plan to do or have entered a running event
If you are aiming to do an event running outside then you need to get used to running outside. A treadmill helps you run since there is a continual ‘pawing back’ motion through the belt. Effectively part of the running motion is done for you therefore you do not develop the strength through this section. You will over-develop some muscles relative to others which will make it feel increasingly harder for you to run outside if you get too used to a treadmill. It can be easy to convince yourself not to run outside when it is, say, raining hard or blowing a gale. But if you train for weeks or even months for one event only to wake up on that day and discover a downpour then what are you going to do?
When the session you want to do is a long endurance one
Whether a long run for you is 30 minutes or 3 hours it can be really boring doing it on a treadmill. Running outside tends to pass quicker since you have a variety of views and terrain to keep you occupied. In addition, usually our longer runs are a training session for some kind of distance event so I refer back to the last point! Also consider long training runs for half or full marathons where you need to learn to drink and / or eat on the run. If you’re going to have to carry things in the event then the place to work out what is best for you is on a training run in similar conditions.
When you want to consolidate your running
I usually include in my clients training programmes a regular ‘run as you feel’ run. This allows you to pull all your running training together. It may mean pushing hard up a hill because you feel strong or really letting the run stretch out on the flats because you feel flexible. It lets your body respond to its muscles and your fitness while allowing you to just enjoy running (which should be the number one reason we all do it!) with no fixed agenda or target. This is much harder to do on a treadmill as your legs respond to the pace of the machine, rather than your pace being a response of your mind and body.
When you plan to run an off-road event
A treadmill has a flat, smooth and bouncy surface. It doesn’t ‘feel’ the same as grass, sand, gravel or mud under your feet. If you are planning an event on non-road surfaces then you need to get used to running on these surfaces. It is good practice to run on various surfaces anyway since the differences in terrain gives your lower limbs a better strength and stability workout. This means all the supporting, smaller muscles around your ankles and knees are worked more, making them stronger and keeping you more resistant to injury.
When the weather is nice and you have spent all day inside
Speaks for itself really! Why would you want to stay cooped up inside with lots of other sweaty bodies when you could be outside in the fresh air?
Running on a treadmill is better than running outside when:
You are returning from an injury and want to try your running out
Speaks for itself really! Why would you want to stay cooped up inside with lots of other sweaty bodies when you could be outside in the fresh air?
Running on a treadmill is better than running outside when:
You are returning from an injury and want to try your running out
Running outside to some extent will strengthen your muscles up but from time to time we can suffer from injuries and niggles. If you have had a set back then it is often worth building your running back up on a treadmill, especially if the injury has been caused by the impact of running. Treadmills nowadays all have shock absorbers to lessen the impact. In addition it is easier to just stop the session completely if needs be when you are on a treadmill, than if you are outside and discover you can’t run anymore when you are 3 miles from home!
When you only want to include a little bit of running in your overall workout
If you run mainly for fitness or you do a lot of cross training then you may want to just include a short running section within an overall cardiovascular workout. Logistically it makes much more common sense to just do 10-15 minutes on the treadmill than to ‘faff’ about going outside, coming back in and so on!
When it’s icy outside
Save yourself a broken leg and use the treadmill instead!
When you are trying new trainers ou
Most good running shops will allow you to bring their trainers back after a test run as long as you don’t use them outside. Proper trainers are the best running investment you can make so be sure that they feel right for you.
I am a fan of treadmill running when there is a specific purpose to it. I include one treadmill session a fortnight in my own programme, but given I am doing 5 or 6 running sessions a week the proportion of treadmill running is quite small. Since my clients don’t have the need (or insanity!) to do so many sessions I tend to discourage them from using treadmills often, for the reasons I have stated above.
I am a fan of treadmill running when there is a specific purpose to it. I include one treadmill session a fortnight in my own programme, but given I am doing 5 or 6 running sessions a week the proportion of treadmill running is quite small. Since my clients don’t have the need (or insanity!) to do so many sessions I tend to discourage them from using treadmills often, for the reasons I have stated above.
So, when all is said and done, if it’s a case of a treadmill run or no run then I’d pick a treadmill one every time!
Have fun,
All the best,
Matthew Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)