Wednesday, October 31, 2012

A Degree In S&C In One Paragraph

Does CrossFit target type-2b fibers and the phosphagen system; does it help with your power, your acceleration? Yes it does, most definitely.

To be fast and strong, you need a good strength base-strength training and heavy lifting is the way to achieve this. To develop this strength into high power, Olympic-style lifts are king(cleans, jerks, snatches, and their variations, etc.). One study showed measured power in the jerk drive ranging from 2,140 watts (2.9 horsepower) in the 56-kg class to 4,786 watts (6.4 horsepower) for a
110-kg lifter. The same researcher calculated that during the second pull, the average power output, from transition to maximum vertical velocity, was 5,600 watts for a 100-kg male and 2,900 watts for
a 75-kg female. Peak power over a split second would be higher still.
Average power outputs for powerlifting events are: bench, 300 watts; squat, 1,000 watts; and deadlift, 1,100 watts. The numbers are much lower because the lifts are performed slowly. They also show that the term powerlifting is a misnomer and highlight the need to include fast, explosive movements such as the Olympic lifts and maximal sprints in your training. Powerlifting is essential in developing a strength base, but you have to work fast as well.

However, while Olympic weightlifting develops excellent vertical acceleration, the principle of specificity means that translating that power into horizontal acceleration and sprint capacity requires
practical application and practice. The soldier, law enforcement officer, and football, basketball, rugby, tennis, and soccer player (to name just a few) also need to do specific work to translate the
vertical power they develop in the gym into horizontal acceleration of the body. Like the Olympic lifts, sprinting is very technical, and optimizing your sprinting technique requires focused work at that

OK, two paragraphs, but what a densely populated few words from my friend Tony Leyland.

Boil it all down and it is both simple and uncommonly referenced:  If you want to move with power, you have to train strength and speed, and if you want the power to apply to a specific skill - running - you have to run, too!
CrossFit was conceived as a strength and conditioning program - a program that prepares the athlete for the unknown and unknowable challenge.  A good S&C program should enable an athlete to easily add sport specific training and excel - which CrossFit does.
A good S&C program should also address the weaknesses that a sport inherently has.  Examples:
-Swimmers have very low core strength - their trunk muscles, and skill in using them to bear a load, are like rubber!  Deadlifts, overhead work, and squats are the cure.
-Baseball players and golfers perform asymetrical motions over and over - that's a recipe for problems.  They need dumb bell work, one leg and one arm work, and overall S&C to shore up under used movements and their muscles.  They should train for power, while giving their bodies relief from the highly repetitive asymetrical force generation inherent to the sport.
-Cyclists have strong legs but never practice using the legs to power the arms, nor do they have any exposure to eccentric loads.  If you would like to do more than cycle, better broaden your base of fitness in the off season.  It's great to be able to ride all day, but it's a small, small slice of "fitness."
-Runners have all of the above problems - PLUS they don't have strong legs (exception - sprinters).

If there's some specific thing you have to be exceptional at to have the life you want, no problem, go for it.  But if the goal is to train for life or combat - constantly varied functional movements at high intensity is your prescription.

Friday, October 26, 2012

"Women Can't Do Pullups" - WHAT?!?!

A pathetic article was published yesterday in the NYT entitled "Why Women Can't Do Pullups." Silly article, but it invited the videos you can watch at the link below of ladies doing pullups - lots!
My best client - my wife Janet! - can do over 20 pullups, multiple dead hangs, and a single pullup with 30 pounds. She never strength trained before age 33. And while the program in the study profiled in the NYT was ONLY working on pullup strength, Janet is also gaining in deadlifts, squats, presses, olympic lifts, rope climbs, metabolic capacity, movement skill, and functional application of her new strengths to her life.

Click the link above - Nadia's 100 pullups in under 4 minutes. Annie's pregnant pullups! Amanda's 10 dead hang pullups! The CrossFit staff ladies banging out pullup after pullup! Awesome.
I don't know if it is worth dedicating time to learn pullups for every woman.  Perhaps not every woman can do a pullup.  But there are thousands of gals doing pullups in CrossFit gym every day, and it is drastically changing what people think women can or cannot do.  It teaches ladies they needn't assume they cannot do it just because of their gender.

"You're A Mutant!"

To repurpose a handy metaphor, let's call two of the first Homo sapiens Adam and Eve. By the time they welcomed their firstborn, that rascal Cain, into the world, 2 million centuries of evolution had established how his infancy would play out. For the first few years of his life, he would take his nourishment from Eve's breast. Once he reached about 4 or 5 years old, his body would begin to slow its production of lactase, the enzyme that allows mammals to digest the lactose in milk. Thereafter, nursing or drinking another animal's milk would have given the little hell-raiser stomach cramps and potentially life-threatening diarrhea; in the absence of lactase, lactose simply rots in the guts. With Cain weaned, Abel could claim more of his mother's attention and all of her milk. This kept a lid on sibling rivalry-though it didn't quell the animus between these particular sibs-while allowing women to bear more young. The pattern was the same for all mammals: At the end of infancy, we became lactose-intolerant for life.

Two hundred thousand years later, around 10,000 B.C., this began to change. A genetic mutation appeared, somewhere near modern-day Turkey, that jammed the lactase-production gene permanently in the "on" position. The original mutant was probably a male who passed the gene on to his children. People carrying the mutation could drink milk their entire lives. Genomic analyses have shown that within a few thousand years, at a rate that evolutionary biologists had thought impossibly rapid, this mutation spread throughout Eurasia, to Great Britain, Scandinavia, the Mediterranean, India and all points in between, stopping only at the Himalayas. Independently, other mutations for lactose tolerance arose in Africa and the Middle East, though not in the Americas, Australia, or the Far East.

You can drink milk, and the reason is because you are a mutant!  Very interesting read.

The BLUF:  human adaptation to adult digestion of milk was remarkably rapid, implying that milk provided a huge survival advantage in the aftermath of humanity's swerve toward agricultural dependence.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Cry "EPOC" And Release The Colpo!

In another entertaining post, AC writes about EPOC- the impact of intense exercise on post-exercise metabolism. Some have claimed that EPOC enables greater fat burn from shorter duration exercise. Perhaps it's true, but is that relevant to fat loss for the majority of us that"train to live"? In other words, it's a rehash of the more basic question - is exercise effective for fat loss? As the American College of Sports Medicine has opined, the science of the topic is not compelling.

Have a good read from the link below - AC takes a poke at Mike Eades, Gary Taubes, and CrossFit, all in one article. Funny that he should take the shot at CF since most of us have been told for years by CrossFit founder Greg Glassman that exercise should not be thought of as the best means to fat loss.

AC's idea for fat loss and exercise is simple and mirrors the "conventional wisdom" of the last 30-40 years - hold intake constant and increase activity levels in order to induce a negative energy balance leading to fat burning and weight loss. "Calories in, calories out." The problem is, in the real world, this tactic doesn't work out well for most. I've discussed why before, but in review:
1. Increased activity tends to lead to increased hunger. In the long term, hunger wins, leading to a resumption of higher calorie intake.
2. There's a limit to the amount of time most of can spend doing exercise; we exercise to live, vice living for exercise.
3. There's a limit to how hard folks are willing to work day after day, week after week, year after year, to count calories. If you worked very, very hard at it, and put calorie control ahead of nearly all other priorities in life, you could probably maintain a good body composition from calorie control alone, and skip the daily workout.  In fact, if it's just about calories, why not do just that? Most folks simply are not going to do this. Nor should they. The human body will regulate intake nicely via hunger if one does not eat a bunch of nasty, Neolithic food. In other words - there's a way the body can and should work to maintain a healthy range of body fat, and that is by eating foods the body has evolved to consume.
4. The body, unlike a bomb calorimeter, is not a closed system. There are many ways the body responds to changes in diet, changes in sleep, changes in exercise, changes in sunlight on the skin; some of those have long term effects, further complicating the mix of variables. In fact - AC's assertion that fat loss is about nothing more than calories in, calories out, is absurd for ignoring the fact that in living animals, caloric intake is a result and a cause in body composition. People with pregnancy hormones eat more. Rapidly growing children eat more. Folks who eat nasty, high carb foods, eat more calories and eventually lose their ability to tolerate same, resulting in fat gain, increased appetite and reduced activity levels.

AC uses the phenomenon of retired athletes as an example for his "calories are all you need to know" mantra; "hey, some guy quit training six hours a day and exploded with fat! That proves that a calorie is a calorie." To my way of thinking, unless you plan on training six hours a day, that's an irrelevant observation. This phenomenon illustrates another point well - it is difficult to eat enough food to support six hours of daily training. It takes work, and it is completely arguable whether the result is biased more towards health or illness, as Primal Blueprint author Mark Sisson ( argues compellingly.

AC's post is an entertaining read, but here's his most insightful blurb (hint: that's not a compliment to his insight):
"As I have stated countless times on this site and in my book The Fat Loss Bible, fat-derived weight loss is all about calories.

Yep, calories.

Calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, calories, CALORIES!

Damn I love that word. In fact, I absolutely adore it because every time I mention it some angry reality-hating low-carber out there who earnestly believes he/she knows more than me (and folks like Jules Hirsch and George Bray) about fat loss - despite the fact he/she is built like a girdle-wearing hippopotamus - is guaranteed to suffer a self-induced aneurism.

Ca-lor-ies, bay-bee!

Look, there goes another low-carber!

OK, enough funnin'.back to the topic at hand: Calories!

It bemuses me to no end to see people trying to devise all manner of clever routines that will somehow send their metabolism off into the stratosphere and burn fat like butter in a fry pan, and yet ignore the most fundamental equation that underlies every successful fat-derived weight loss attempt:


That's a good example of where AC's lack of insight becomes stupefying - there's no one who disagrees with this point.  It's like shouting "the sun comes up in the morning!"  He's picking a fight here with a straw man. Of course we know that a person who is losing fat is in negative caloric balance. The question is "why?" This is a question AC ignores, because to him it is a simple thing; just eat less, move more, any idiot can do it, and anyone who does not do it is a lazy sloth (AC tends to choose uglier, more colorful characterizations for those more fat laden than himself).

People eat when they are hungry - maybe not this minute, or even for a month, or two - but eventually, hunger wins BECAUSE IT IS SUPPOSED TO!  A million years of evolution ensures we eat when hungry! So the first answer to the question of how to get someone to negative caloric balance is to get their hunger under control.

How does one "get hunger under control"?? First, end metabolic derangement by reducing carb intake by eliminating most Neolithic foods.

When you are eating meat, eggs, vegetables, nuts and seeds, little fruit or starch, and no sugar/wheat, after the initial adaptation period, hunger is regulated because blood sugar levels are regulated; this helps to break existing positive associations to sweets/carbs, which the metabolically deranged use to treat their gyrating blood sugar levels.

By regulating food quality, carb intake is generally kept low, ~100g/day or less. You only need to eat more carbs than that if you really love veggies and/or train for competitive activity. If you have a lot of metabolic injury (high body fat or poor glycemic control or both) you will benefit from a period of ketogenic adaptation - keeping carbs below 25g/day (what the Atkins diet calls "induction").

As you learn how to convert to a diet modeled on the Paleolithic idea, exercise for the physical attributes you desire - strength, speed, endurance, agility, coordination, skill, accuracy, balance, power, stamina or whatever suits your fancy. Exercise for health, exercise for appearance if you like, exercise for performance/job requirements. There are many reasons for exercise, but fat loss is not primary among them. So, on this point AC and I agree - HIIT is not important for weight loss, it is important because you can use it to buy a lot of fitness in a small amount of time.

Over the first month of this approach, you will restore the normal metabolic process of using fat to fuel most of you activity, using sugar/ketones to feed the brain, and maintaining stable blood sugar.

You will lose visceral fat, liver fat, and likely sleep better (due to stable night time blood sugar). You will increase HDL, reduce LDL particle size, and reduce triglycerides - and these things will happen faster than if one follows AC's advice to reduce calories with no further guidance.

AC also likes to mis-characterize "low-carbers" as folks who advocate only "very low carb" intakes (<75g atkins="atkins" but="but" day="day" didn="didn" even="even" extended="extended" famous="famous" for="for" intake="intake" level="level" low-carber="low-carber" most="most" nbsp="nbsp" o:p="o:p" of="of" periods.="periods." recommend="recommend" robert="robert" t="t" that="that" the="the">

So when AC wails about the decrease in thyroid output due to low carb intake, he's talking about sustained very low carb consumption only; presumably then, he knows that someone eating 75g/day is eating a relatively low level of carbs, but does not suffer much risk of thyroid issues (at least not due to insufficient carb intake).

Eat meat, eggs and veggies, nuts and seeds, little fruit or starch, and no sugar/wheat.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Egg Shells for Joints?

While many conventional treatments have been used to remedy chronic joint pain, interest continues to grow in the area of alternative, natural treatments. Eggshell membrane (EM) supplementation is a novel treatment for joint health, and has recently been shown to rapidly and continually improve joint pain in patients with osteoarthritis and joint and connective tissue disorders. The current study aimed to observe the effects of one particular eggshell membrane product (fast joint care+; FJC+) supplementation on chronic joint pain in physically active adults.

Sixty adults (40.2 ± 10.2 y; 78.6 ± 10.2 kg) experiencing chronic joint pain supplemented daily with either 500mg FJC+ or placebo, over the course of 4 weeks. Participants also completed a weekly exercise protocol designed to challenge their irritated joint. Participants then rated their joint pain immediately, and one day after, this exercise challenge.

Participants in the FJC+ group reported significantly less joint pain post-exercise following FJC+ supplementation (-16.13 ± 3.60) when compared to those in the placebo group (–4.30 ± 2.84; p=0.00171). In addition, during the 4 week study, both groups experienced decreases in next day joint pain (p=0.0015), although there were no significant differences between the two groups (p>0.05).

In the current study, daily FJC+ supplementation appeared to decrease post-exercise joint pain vs. placebo, although this effect did not persist 24 hours post-exercise. Because eggshell membrane research is in its infancy, further research may be needed to clarify its utility in managing joint pain.

Monday, October 22, 2012

Mercola: Statin Drugs May Accelerate Cardiovascular Disease

What can you conclude from reading stats like this:
"A new study in the journal Atherosclerosis1 shows that statin use is
associated with a 52 percent increased prevalence and extent of
calcified coronary plaque compared to non-users. None of the
participants in the study - 6,673 in all - had any known coronary artery
disease at the time of undergoing coronary CT angiography (CCTA) - a
non-invasive method that allows you to see coronary atherosclerotic
features, including plaque composition.

"Arterial plaque is a hallmark of cardiovascular disease and increases
your risk of all-cause mortality, so clearly, anything that increases
calcification and stiffening of your arteries is wisely avoided. And
statins seem to fall into this category.

"These disturbing findings come right on the heels of another study
published in the journal Diabetes Care,2 which discovered that type 2
diabetics with advanced atherosclerosis who are frequent statin users
have significantly higher amounts of coronary artery calcification
compared to less frequent users of the drug.

"Furthermore, in a subgroup of participants who initially were not
receiving statins, progression of both coronary artery calcification as
well as abdominal aortic artery calcification was significantly
increased when they began frequent statin use."

I don't think you can conclude much at all. While it is true that
calcification is a serious abnormality and is associated with very poor
cardiovascular health - this is an observational study. These people
are all sick already, so the most that can be said is that statins do
not arrest all of the problems associated with being sick and thus
"needing" statins in the first place.

Furthermore, the Cochrane Collection, the closest thing we have to an
impartial interpreter of the mixed scientific results on statins, has
already made a strong case that the only folks who can improve their all
cause mortality rates are those who are under age 65 and have previously
diagnosed heart disease. IOW - by their research, statins are a no win
as a long term, primary prevention strategy, although they are used for
that purpose quite commonly.

As Dr. M's writer reports, there are significant potential side effects
from statin use - and frankly, little reason to believe they would be
effective. But studies like the ones cited above just can't show
causality - no matter how much we might like to believe that they do.
That's not to say that if I was a diabetic taking a statin that I would
ignore the results of a study like these - they should be frightening
for anyone who thinks a statin is a magic bullet.

Most importantly, the vast majority of folks who have a lipid profile
that might prompt an MD to recommend statin usage can correct that
rapidly with carbohydrate restriction (the side effect of which is
appetite reduction, glycemic control, and weight loss). Eat meat, eggs
and vegetables, nuts and seeds, little fruit or starch and no

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Faction Nutrition Seminar

Faction nutrition seminar 2012 - y'all come on out and see me!
 This Nutrition Seminar will again be led by Paul Eich, nutrition extraordinaire, and will take place here at Faction Strength and Conditioning Nov 10th from 12-3pm!  :-)
He will show you exactly how to eat to improve your health, lose body fat, build strength, and improve your performance. 
Paul will take you step by step through how you should eat and how to live a lifestyle that will keep you lean and athletic for decades. 
Many of the concepts will be in line with the Paleo philosophy, one of the world's healthiest nutrition plans and the method of eating many nutrition and medical professionals believe we are most naturally designed to eat by nature. 
Following Paul's previous seminars, our members have made amazing progress. We even had one person gain 4 pounds of muscle and lost 20 pounds of fat in only 6 weeks!
Cost is for $27 for Faction members and $97 for non-members.
We'd love to know what you'd like learn at the seminar, please answer this short 2 question survey to we can make this seminar as specific as possible to your wants and needs! 
Feel free to reply for more information.
Doug Larson, MS, CSCS, USAW, NSCA-CPT, CF-L1

Co-owner, Faction Strength and Conditioning, Inc.
Home of CrossFit Memphis

Watch my mobility seminar online!

Barbell Shrugged

Folks I had the pleasure of sitting down with Mike and Doug of Faction Strength and Conditioning to record this "Barbell Shrugged" podcast - that was fun!  I was right out of the woods and still decked in hunting gear.  We started out talking Paleo Dog but it covered a ton of ground and I think you'll enjoy it.  Feel free to post your feedback below!

Fructose and DHA Study

"It's hard to find a study that supports the Bulletproof Diet more than
this one. Not only did it show that fructose damages your brain
function, it also shows that DHA protects your brain. The Bulletproof
Diet supplies ample high quality omega-3s from grass-fed meat,
wild-caught/low-mercury seafood, and select fish and krill oil
supplements. If you overdo your fructose intake for a day, these fats
will help limit the damage. On the other hand, if you aren't consuming
enough omega-3s, you're going to be more sensitive to the negative
effects of fructose."

Rats were tested in a maze, then retested after subbing either fructose
solution or fructose solution and more DHA. The fructose only rats
showed cognitive decline, but the fructose+DHA rats showed less. There
were also physiological issues such as insulin resistance that
manifested in the rats "fructosization".

I think all that proves is you can make rats sicker, faster, if you
overfeed them fructose.

But it comports with other information that already indicates both of
the things "Bullet Proof Exec" would like you to believe:
-Fructose is toxic at relatively low doses
-Foods that expand your waistline is generally harming your brain

I'm not ready to have the USDA start arresting parents that feed their
children sports drinks or cokes, but ... hopefully you get the idea.

If you do sports drinks or, for example, that heavenly beverage called
"Dr. Pepper", moderation (a serving every other day perhaps?) would seem
the better part of valor.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Classic Quotes: Bingo

Money quote!

@DarrellWhite: Perfection works better as a target than a goal. The goal, then, is to keep your eye on the target.

Leucine for Muscle Protein Synthesis


Background: The effects of essential amino acid (EAA) supplementation during moderate steady state (ie, endurance) exercise on postexercise skeletal muscle metabolism are not well described, and the potential role of supplemental leucine on muscle protein synthesis (MPS) and associated molecular responses remains to be elucidated.
Objective: This randomized crossover study examined whether EAA supplementation with 2 different concentrations of leucine affected post–steady state exercise MPS, whole-body protein turnover, and mammalian target of rapamycin 1 (mTORC1) intracellular signaling.
Design: Eight adults completed 2 separate bouts of cycle ergometry [60 min, 60% VO2peak (peak oxygen uptake)]. Isonitrogenous (10 g EAA) drinks with different leucine contents [leucine-enriched (L)-EAA, 3.5 g leucine; EAA, 1.87 g leucine] were consumed during exercise. MPS and whole-body protein turnover were determined by using primed continuous infusions of [2H5]phenylalanine and [1-13C]leucine. Multiplex and immunoblot analyses were used to quantify mTORC1 signaling.
Results: MPS was 33% greater (P < 0.05) after consumption of L-EAA (0.08 ± 0.01%/h) than after consumption of EAA (0.06 ± 0.01%/h). Whole-body protein breakdown and synthesis were lower (P < 0.05) and oxidation was greater (P < 0.05) after consumption of L-EAA than after consumption of EAA. Regardless of dietary treatment, multiplex analysis indicated that Akt and mammalian target of rapamycin phosphorylation were increased (P < 0.05) 30 min after exercise. Immunoblot analysis indicated that phosphorylation of ribosomal protein S6 and extracellular-signal regulated protein kinase increased (P < 0.05) and phosphorylation of eukaryotic elongation factor 2 decreased (P < 0.05) after exercise but was not affected by dietary treatment.
Conclusion: These findings suggest that increasing the concentration of leucine in an EAA supplement consumed during steady state exercise elicits a greater MPS response during recovery.

It would be interesting to see the results if this were performed on strength/power athletes, for both max effort and CrossFit style training.  Most likely, leucine would be a good supplement to add for a competitive CrossFitter, but the difference between an athlete that's eating plenty of real meat anyway, and one who doesn't but supplements with leucine, would likely be small.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Hero WOD: Tom

Complete as many rounds in 25 minutes as you can of:
7 Muscle-ups
155 pound Thruster, 11 reps
14 Toes-to-bar

U.S. Army First Lieutenant Thomas M. Martin, 27, of Ward, Arkansas, assigned to the 1st Squadron, 40th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, based in Fort Richardson, Alaska, died on October 14, 2007 in Al Busayifi, Iraq, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with small arms fire. He is survived by his parents, Edmund and Candis Martin; sisters Sarah Hood, Becky Martin, and Laura Martin; fiancee, Erika Noyes; and grandmother, E. Jean Martin.

Friday, October 12, 2012

Hero WOD: Glen

For time:
135 pound Clean and jerk, 30 reps
Run 1 mile
15 foot Rope climb, 10 ascents
Run 1 mile
100 Burpees

Former U.S. Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, 42, of Winchester, Massachusetts, assigned to a State Department security detail in Benghazi, Libya, died in an attack on a U.S. consulate on September 11, 2012. He is survived by his parents, Ben and Barbara, sister Katie, and brother Greg.

Fair winds and following seas on your journey warrior!

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Another Pro Using CF

"He spent part of the summer working out in Los Angeles with assistant
coach Bill Bayno, who ensured that each day's sessions were competitive.
Bayno brought in smaller guards to go one-on-one against Williams in
different scenarios, and the two did extensive cardiovascular work as
well. They focused on driving and post moves, as well as getting to the
free throw line, which Williams did well at summer league. On his own,
Williams took up boxing and CrossFit, and he said that the boxing caused
him to lose six or seven pounds in two weeks."

Bloggy Thoughts, Faction S&C, Paleo Pursuits

I took my first deer hunt of 2012 yesterday, mostly a scouting venture with a bow in my hand.  At first, it was tedious and frustrating, but eventually - the woods broke through and I didn't want to leave.  Felt ecstatic all day.  There was sign everywhere, and I was within spitting distance of deer twice - one big one by the sound when it vamoosed - without ever seeing a hair of either.  It was that thick - which is also why it's good deer cover.

Every piece of land tells a story, and I enjoyed learning the story I could see on this one - old houses, long abandoned, little left but foundations.  A long abandoned orchard - beautiful old pecans.  Fields not plowed for years with no trees older than 20 years, sitting next to bottom lands with large, old trees, the fences gone but easy to note nonetheless due to the shift in tree ages.

After that, I made my way to visit with Mike Bledsoe and Doug Larson of Faction Strength and Conditioning, where we talked performance nutrition for their podcast, The Barbell Shrugged, at their site,

Doug is offering a free online nutrition course - to check it out, go here.  While I like to dive into the long boring details of why, Doug is strong on what the heck to do to get healthy and fit - right now.

I highly recommend you join for his free offering!  Starts October 15 at the link above ...

Monday, October 1, 2012

Elevated Visceral Fat: "Nobody Wants That"

The language that follows is the language of observational/epidemiological studies:
"among obese adults, visceral fat was associated with more than a twofold increased risk of developing incident diabetes (odds ratio 2.42, 95% CI 1.59 to 3.68).  In addition, developing either condition was also associated with markers of insulin resistance including elevated fructosamine levels (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.67) and elevated fasting blood glucose (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.56).
But there were no associations with general markers of obesity, including body mass index (BMI) or total body fat."

In other words, "these are interesting correlations."

Not that I would disagree with their conclusions:
"Our study may have implications for understanding differences between metabolically healthy and pathologic obesity."

This is interesting because not everyone that's fat is insulin resistant, and those who are develop illness as much higher rates than those who are not.

This is also interesting:
"In participants without diabetes at baseline, a number of factors were significantly and independently associated with incident diabetes in obese adults:
  • Elevated visceral fat: OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.59 to 3.68 (P<0 .001=".001" li="li">
  • Elevated systolic blood pressure: OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.48 (P=0.006)
  • Elevated fructosamine levels: OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.67 (P<0 .001=".001" li="li">
  • Elevated fasting blood glucose: OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.56 (P<0 .001=".001" li="li">
  • Weight gain from baseline: OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10 (P=0.002)
  • Family history of diabetes: OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.25 to 4.29 (P=0.008)
"There were no associations for BMI, total body fat, or abdominal subcutaneous fat, they reported." 

Many of the same factors correlated with the development of insulin resistant in those not obese when the study began.

All in all, this fits a well recognized pattern of illness - high fructosamine levels/high fructose intake, visceral fat, high blood pressure, elevated fasting glucose, weight gain, and family history of diabetes.  

Lucky for us, most of these symptoms are treatable through carb restriction - I recommend starting out at 25-50g/day to stop these symptoms, and after weight/fat/symptom normalization, many will be able to eat more carbs but maintain their wellness.  Eat meat, eggs, vegetables, nuts and seeds, little fruit or starch, no sugar/wheat.