Boyle - Wake Up That Big Butt (Muscle)

http://www.stack.com/video/2616870825001/Elite-Performance-With-Mike-Boyle-PreWorkout-Glute-Activation/
I think we would all be better if we did this routinely for a year or so.  I found that my knee injury led to (or resulted from) left/right imbalances that this drill addresses.  Were I doing these, I may not have been hurting myself as much the last few years.

BMJ: We Missed the Mark on Sat Fat

This is a great read, I highly recommend you read the whole piece.

"The aspect of dietary saturated fat that is believed to have the greatest influence on cardiovascular risk is elevated concentrations of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Yet the reduction in LDL cholesterol from reducing saturated fat intake seems to be specific to large, buoyant (type A) LDL particles, when in fact it is the small, dense (type B) particles (responsive to carbohydrate intake) that are implicated in cardiovascular disease.4

"Indeed, recent prospective cohort studies have not supported any significant association between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular risk.5 Instead, saturated fat has been found to be protective. The source of the saturated fat may be important. Dairy foods are exemplary providers of vitamins A and D. As well as a link between vitamin D deficiency and a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular mortality, calcium and phosphorus found commonly in dairy foods may have antihypertensive effects that may contribute to inverse associations with cardiovascular risk.6 7 8 One study showed that higher concentrations of plasmatrans-palmitoleic acid, a fatty acid mainly found in dairy foods, was associated with higher concentrations of high density lipoprotein, lower concentrations of triglycerides and C reactive protein, reduced insulin resistance, and a lower incidence of diabetes in adults.9 Red meat is another major source of saturated fat. Consumption of processed meats, but not red meat, has been associated with coronary heart disease and diabetes mellitus, which may be explained by nitrates and sodium as preservatives.10

"The notoriety of fat is based on its higher energy content per gram in comparison with protein and carbohydrate. However, work by the biochemist Richard Feinman and nuclear physicist Eugene Fine on thermodynamics and the metabolic advantage of different diet compositions showed that the body did not metabolise different macronutrients in the same way.11 Kekwick and Pawan carried out one of the earliest obesity experiments, published in the Lancet in 1956.12 They compared groups consuming diets of 90% fat, 90% protein, and 90% carbohydrate and showed that the greatest weight loss was in the fat consuming group. The authors concluded that the “composition of the diet appeared to outweigh in importance the intake of calories.”

"The “calorie is not a calorie” theory has been further substantiated by a recent JAMAstudy showing that a “low fat” diet resulted in the greatest decrease in energy expenditure, an unhealthy lipid pattern, and increased insulin resistance in comparison with a low carbohydrate and low glycaemic index diet.13 In the past 30 years in the United States the proportion of energy from consumed fat has fallen from 40% to 30% (although absolute fat consumption has remained the same), yet obesity has rocketed."

This one is a mind blower, as I have read the NNT was 100, whereas baby aspirin is 40.  It's much worse than that:

"A meta-analysis of predominantly industry sponsored data reported that in a low risk group of people aged 60-70 years taking statins the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one cardiovascular event in one year was 345.20 The strongest evidence base for statins is in secondary prevention, where all patients after a myocardial infarction are prescribed maximum dose treatment irrespective of total cholesterol, because of statins’ anti-inflammatory or pleiotropic (coronary plaque stabilising) effects. In this group the NNT is 83 for mortality over five years. This doesn’t mean that each patient benefits a little but rather that 82 will receive no prognostic benefit.21 The fact that no other cholesterol lowering drug has shown a benefit in terms of mortality supports the hypothesis that the benefits of statins are independent of their effects on cholesterol."

http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6340

Time to end the war against saturated fat? - latimes.com

"Malhotra cites a 2009 UCLA study showing that three-quarters of patients admitted to the hospital with acute myocardial infarction do not have high total cholesterol; what they do have, at a rate of 66%, is metabolic syndrome -- a cluster of worrying signs including hypertension, high fasting blood sugar, abdominal obesity, high triglycerides and low HDL ("good" cholesterol).

"Meanwhile, research has shown that when people with high LDL cholesterol (the "bad" kind) purge their diet of saturated fats, they lower one kind of LDL (the large, buoyant particles called "Type A" LDL), but not the small, dense particles ("Type B" LDL) that are linked to high carbohydrate intake and are implicated in heart disease.

"Recent research has also shown that Mediterranean diets -- admittedly skimpy on red meat but hardly light on saturated fats -- have outpaced both statins and low-fat diets as a means of preventing repeat heart attacks. Other research suggests that the saturated fat in dairy foods may protect against hypertension, inflammation and a host of other dysfunctions increasingly linked to heart attacks."

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-saturated-fat-20131022,0,2193813.story#axzz2iyzEOz96

The case against saturated fat was never strong, and it looks sillier and sillier each day.  None of the predicted benefits of restricting saturated fat have materialized for either populations or individuals.  The case that government killed thousands by recommending low fat diets on weak science is much stronger than the case against saturated fat.  Please insert rant here about unaccountable pseudo scientific recommendations by government entities.

Forgiveness, Sort Of

1. Build a good core of aerobic conditioning and muscle endurance before any workout that is “extreme.”
2. Slowly progress your performance in terms of repetitions. Even if you are fit, a workout that included hundreds of reps of something you haven’t been doing is potentially very dangerous.
3. Understand and maintain proper form during an exercise. When you lose form, your muscles are tired and the benefit from continued additional reps is exponentially less.
4. Provide ample rest and recovery. Stress loads the system, improvement happens during recovery when your body rebuilds.
5. Stay hydrated, with balanced nutrition, ensuring you have enough carbohydrates on hand for energy while you exercise.
6. If it’s really hot where you exercise, consider using early morning or late evening workouts to reduce the risk of dehydration and electrolyte imbalance.
7. If you feel like you have questions about these steps or the risk factors, consult a health provider. Physical therapists and physicians are great choices here.

https://medium.com/health-fitness-1/7c154157c96a

I wrote a response to this author's original article which stated that CrossFit's dirty little secret was rhabdomyolosis.  While I appreciate his situation - he didn't mean to be in the middle of a national firestorm, and probably would have edited his article differently were it intended for a national audience (and I would not want to be held to the carpet for every single thing I've written in this blog for the last five years, by the way) - his response could have simply been, and should have been, "I was wrong to imply or state that CrossFit has been deceptive about rhabdo."

Instead he wrapped himself in a mantle of "I started a debate" and "I'm a scientist, you guys just don't understand scientifically informed folks like me."

Kinda weak, but who cares.  Folks may learn more about rhabdo from this kerfuffle and that's good.

The author is an example of how being baked into a profession limits one's ability to perceive and analyze something new.  He sees through the same beliefs that allowed him to become a professional PT, so he sees value in platitudes like the above.  It's not that there's anything wrong with the above, but it won't make anyone well or fit, and he doesn't understand how CrossFit makes folks well and fit better than whatever else is in the market.  He also doesn't realize that's why CrossFit is growing like it has.  He also doesn't realize that while there are certainly some of the 7000 CrossFit gyms who put more emphasis on to the max exertion than I do, most of the CF gyms are filled with blue collar athletes like I am who were never at any risk of earning glory for our guts or athleticism.  We just want to live better and have useful bodies.

He recommends using "good form", which is an industry term that has no meaning beyond the perception of that person using the term, and what that person has come believe "good form" is.  I prefer the term technique, which can be quantified - the technique that gets the work done more powerfully with the least risk of injury is better.  Sure, drink water.  Sure, rest after you workout, and don't overtrain.  Sure, have some "balanced nutrition" (with the caveat that the professionals of nutrition say that but don't generally prescribe a diet that is "balanced" in any way that seems to help people; thanks very much for another meaningless buzzword, media).  Definitely don't do anything extreme, in fact, it may be better to stay inside your house all day.  As for aerobic conditioning and "muscle endurance" these are likely to set you up for rhabdo more than trying CrossFit as a neophyte - CrossFit neophytes generally cannot work hard enough to rhabdo themselves.  But take a bodybuilder who's a killer athlete and have that person attack even a moderate CrossFit workout without prior exposure and beware.  If you want sound advice about how to avoid rhabdo, try this:  First work mechanics, then consistency, then intensity.  This is CrossFit's time tested approach.  All beginners should hear this, and every introduction to CrossFit should reinforce this.

How many times has a PT been confronted by a client who said "I started squatting, worked on the technique for months, and my knees are awesome now!"  I bet, next to never when compared to the number of times a PT or doctor encountered a person who squatted heavy weights, with zero technique, and complains of knee injury.  In this way, doctors and PTs can be the worst folks to ask about exercise - they have no skin in saying "sure, train hard and do stuff that's out of the box."  They are almost professionally bound to say "well, there was this article published in 1960-something that said squats loosen your knee ligaments, so just walk briskly 30 minutes per day and eat less."

I look forward to the day I can get an MD in my gym, who will cure what ails her, and she will tell all her patients "go to CrossFit, and do what they say, and you will get the health you want without the pills I will give you if you don't do that." I bet this is happening often in the 7000 affiliates around the world, and I think this can - no kidding - change the world.

Note to Memphis CrossFitters:  Dr. Brad Cole, of Cole Pain Therapy Group, will work with you to make your CrossFit much better!  He's an example of how the traditional medical providers can recognize the value of CrossFit and help us do it better.

What Is Unseen (Thanks Bastiat!)

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/10/25/not_debatable_saturated_fat_is_bad_for_you_106734.html
In the article linked above, the author makes a case against saturated fat intake that amounts to an epidemiological conjecture dressed in scientific sheep's clothing.  It also reminds me of one of my favorite economics treatises, "That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen", which is referred to as "The Parable of the Broken Window" or "The Broken Window Fallacy".  I read this thing annually and it is remarkable how relevant it is today, even though it was written over 100 years ago.

In this author's defense of the saturated fat is bad for you conjecture, what is not seen is any evidence an intervention study would provide.  There's a good reason why that author did not reference intervention studies that show saturated fat is bad for you - there are no such studies.

I could repeat my repeated descriptions of why epidemiological studies do not prove anything and don't "show" anything except correlations (IOW, the sun comes up and I wake up - but which caused which?  Epidemiology cannot tell you the answer to that question).  If you are curious, this article tells the story of how epidemiology went wrong at length and in detail:
Taubes - Do We Really Know?

In other words, there's only one thing this article presents - the author's opinion about how to interpret epidemiology and other non-intervention based scientific evidence, and that's great.  The only reason the article is the least bit interesting is the author's claim, in the title, that the saturated fat conjecture is not debatable.  Hopefully that's the editor's doing, and not the author's.  As a "scientist", the author should know debate never ends in science.  All scientific work is subject to debate.  The point of science is to discern what may be true by always looking for the way to disprove the matter at hand.

The effort to disprove never ends.  Everything is always debatable.  If we found an apple that floats in the air, or a situation in which matter cannot be converted to energy and instead simply evaporates to nothing, we'd have to review certain "laws" (laws are those conjectures that have survived every attempt at disproof over a long time by many who try to disprove).  

One needn't be a "scientist" with a PHD to know the reality of the scientific method.  The frustrating thing is how many "scientists" seem to think that opinions of scientists are related to the scientific method.  They are not.  Even if every scientist believed saturated fat is bad for you, that would not mean anything scientifically speaking.

So, what happens when you eat saturated fat?  Will it kill you?  Here's what happened to me.  My body weight dropped over six years from 225 to my current 195.  My cholesterol numbers are the envy of my doctors - trigs 25-75, HDL 60-75, and LDL estimated at 114.  My waist is three inches smaller.  I feel good, sleep well and perform well in my athletic pursuits.  I eat sat fat by the boatload - butter, MCTs, heavy cream in my coffee, sour cream, cream cheese, hard cheeses, and red meat whenever I like.  In other words, every known health marker improved when I ate MORE fat and less carbohydrate.

What happens when you eat high fat and moderate to low carb?  Your body burns saturated fats for fuel, which reduces the saturated fat to water and CO2.  What happens when you eat low fat and high carb?  Tour body makes a saturated fat from the carbs, and blood levels of fats go much higher (measured as triglycerides).  The reverse is also true (and testable by you in your body):  when fat consumption replaces carb consumption, triglycerides go down.  So if you want to raise the levels of fat floating around your veins, by all means, pig out on pizza, whole grains, and especially sugary foods of any kind.

In short, beware the opinion dressed in scientific sheep's clothing.  Until they complete rigorous intervention studies that show mortality reduction via restriction of saturated fat, "they got nothing."

Get Your Rhabdo Here | Glory

"There are an average of 35,000 deaths from car accidents each year. An individual’s lifetime risk of dying in a motor vehicle is about 1 in 100. Assuming an individual occasionally texts and drives, the risk for an accident is increased by 20 times. Let’s now compare that to the annual incidence of rhabdomyolysis. A whopping .06% of patients. Also remember, this is total incidence. The most common patients that develop rhabdo are already sick with another illness such as cancer. Out of all rhabdomyolysis cases the mortality rate is less than 5%.

Point being? Everyone takes risks on a daily basis. We all knowingly enter a vehicle daily because of the convenience it offers. This author is literally telling you to avoid CrossFit because there is a very, very, insanely miniscule chance you might get a non-life threatening illness. Please note, I am not brushing this off as a silly illness. It is a very scary thing, and every trainer should take it seriously and know how to safely train his or her athletes. This illness is also completely avoidable. Step 1, do some research on the gyms in the area. Step 2, take responsibility for your own actions. There is absolutely no reason to go 110% at a workout during your first day, and no coach would ever force that upon you. If you’re wavering on trying CrossFit because of an article you read about it killing you, you should contemplate the fact that you are highly more likely to die on the way to said gym than find one with a coach that forces you to do 500 burpees, for example."

http://spencergarnold.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/get-your-rhabdo-here/

I don't have anything to add to that, but I recommend this article if you are concerned about CrossFit and rhabdo.

Running Transition Program

Interesting program which has been built by Dr. Romanov and family - I look forward to seeing how it helps runners to move better!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6MpFHDBTiM&feature=youtu.be