Addendum: We Kept It Gray

Addendum: We Kept It Gray

Historiography

There is nothing intrinsically wrong about paleo dieting; short term adoption may, in fact, benefit certain populations. Its popularity is based on selective interpretation and an unfounded belief in applicability. This can be said that this is true of most any popular idea of any time, but paleo is different in that it is not a modern theory based on archaic research, but an archaic theory unchanged from its inception.

This is not to say that it has not been modified to appeal to a contemporary demographic, but rather, that its tenets are reasoned with all of the [lack of] scientific knowledge and bias of the early 20th century. The Stefansson and Price expeditions, which showed that 1) Humans can survive on a diet comprised exclusively of animal products 2) People in westernized nations had reduced markers of health (bad teeth, in particular) compared to indigenous populations. In the 1970s, Gastroenterologist Walter Voegtlin decided that since we have the capacity to digest animal protein, and certain populations get by on little else, that we are all innately carnivores. Basically, he said “What applies to remote groups of Eskimos applies to all of humanity, except even more so.”
  
I do not intend to take any credit away from these individuals, as their contributions were of great value in the progression of nutrition science, but we should not forget the historical context in which these studies were conducted. Stefansson was an arctic explorer; he was much more concerned with survivability than optimal health. Price was a dentist; he was absolutely correct in positing that western diets were responsible for the prevalence of weak bones and rotten teeth, but he took his observations to logical fallacy. I do not believe it was intentional, merely reflective of the scientific limitations of the day.

The poor health of western populations was a product of the unregulated industrialization of food. Wheat was hulled, bleached, bromated (which is currently illegal in the rest of the civilized world. USA! USA!), stored in silos with no moisture control, and combined with sawdust. Dairy cows were fed distillery waste and produced tainted milk. “Formula” for babies was often a cheap sugar and rice water mixture, which led to a great many cases of malnutrition and death. Meat was often contaminated, rancid, and preserved with formaldehyde. It was not until we killed hundreds of our own Soldiers with tainted beef in the Spanish-American War that some regulation was imposed. Even later in the century, industrial solvents and lubricants, products of mass production in WWII, became staples in the food industry. The waste product of a popular lubricant actually led to the formation of the modern supplement industry, as defatted soy flour became a cheap source of protein that could be sold at a huge profit margin. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that the population with the food-based diet is healthier.

Though regulations in America are still dangerously lax, the food industry has been responsive to a health-conscious market. The presence of any poison must be clearly indicated on the ingredients list. It is still the responsibility of the consumer to research the toxicity of any given compound, but, in all fairness, the presence of fire diamonds on packaging might dissuade consumers.

Because people undertaking a paleo diet are doing so in the present day, they should not equate the food of Weston Price’s era to that which is currently available. A modern young European, or a young non-alcoholic, non-obese American, would show very similar, if not superior markers of development and health. There would still be a discrepancy in cavities, but that is due to the pervasive availability of sugar, rather than the absence of essential nutrients. A regular diet of frozen pizza and ice cream sandwiches as a youth allowed me to grow to above average height, with not a single cavity or fracture. I certainly don’t come from hardy stock, as my parents were not so fortunate, spending their formative years in the abject poverty of postwar Italy. I do not in any way condone the typical American diet, but the plausible health advantages of paleo eating are far removed from what they would have been a hundred years ago.

Pragmatic Utility

A paleo-style diet has some applicability in the treatment of metabolic syndrome. A sedentary lifestyle requires very few carbohydrates, and the reduction/removal of dietary fructose will assist in normalizing liver function and insulin regulation. Low intensity activity would also be of benefit, as it would increase glucose transport efficiency to muscle tissue, increase glucagon production, and increase B-oxidation as a proportion of expenditure, all of which contribute to lower blood sugar levels. Because abnormal insulin activity is the perpetuating factor in populations with metabolic syndrome, I would actually suggest that a paleo approach would yield faster results than a similarly restricted isocaloric diet. Once stability is achieved, however, a different methodology would likely prove superior in eliciting further improvements in body composition, especially if anaerobic work (i.e. weight training) is simultaneously undertaken.

Standards, No Compromise

There is no argument that can be made about which diets “work”. Results will vary across every demographic, and very often, even within specific populations. The only way to calibrate a diet to your specific needs is through years of trial and error, ideally under the supervision of a good trainer/nutritionist. In the realm of theoretical work, we can only know the experiences of others, but from that data, we can determine plausible courses of action. There are traps to avoid in conducting diet research:

1. Deceptive Studies. These also feature notably in the absurd claims made by supplement manufacturers. It is impossible to judge the efficacy of any compound/routine/diet if all other variables are not controlled. When an advertisement claims that people have lost up to 40 pounds in two months, they are not saying anything quantifiable about their product. The 40 pounds was lost in tandem with a diet and exercise program (hence the asterisk). Even when variables are accounted for, the claimed efficacy of diets are generally based on comparison with a control group. Your form of caloric restriction works better than unrestricted consumption? Amazing.

2. Assumed Transference. There may exist a great deal of fair, unbiased research which favorably compares a product/diet/routine to many of its plausible options. The only problem is that the studies in question were done on rats/monkeys/horses/pregnant women/diabetics/the comatose/burn victims. There is some transference among all mammals, but life processes and responses to stimuli are extremely variable. It’s great that Boron increases muscle mass in some geriatric populations, and that intravenous Glutamine speeds recovery in burn victims. Perhaps there’s a certain fatty acid that slows the progress of Alzheimer’s, or reduces the risk of relapse following triple bypass surgery. Fantastic, all of it. That doesn’t mean it applies to you. If taking an aspirin relieves your headache, it does not follow that taking two aspirin would be more effective, or that taking aspirin in the absence of pain would cause euphoria. If panaceas were so common, we wouldn’t need fifty variations of a drug to treat the same disease.

3. Attribution Error. Sometimes success is achieved despite a poor diet/training regimen, sometimes failure is achieved despite a proper diet/training regimen. We’re much more likely to attribute success to the most convenient coincidental occurrence, rather than conduct a proper post-game analysis. We like to think about amazing throws and catches, because they give dramatic significance to an otherwise mundane outcome. One might feel sick or tired during a powerlifting meet, and say “I hit that lift through pure willpower”, but actually, they hit it because their months of preparation were sufficient to overcome minor unexpected obstacles. If you follow a diet during a particularly happy time in your life, you may insist it was extremely effective, give no acknowledgement to the context of your success, and be genuinely shocked when the same experiment yields different results.

There are very few circumstances in which inertia yields greater results than action. Insecurity causes an obsession with certainty, and hard doctrine leads to closed minds. There is no “answer”, and nothing “works”. Adherence to archaic convictions in the face of scientific evidence is self-destructive. Progress demands that we cease the tribal practice of tying our egos into a collective idea. You aren’t “faithful” to Westside, or Stronglifts, or Atkin’s, or Muscle Milk, you’re just denying yourself the knowledge of anything else because you’re afraid of realizing your own identity.        

Your Diet is Bad and You Should Feel Bad!

This new and exciting series provides systematic deconstruction of popular diets.

Episode 1: Paleo

Theory: Diseases of affluence are manifested by a diet high in starch, dairy, oil, and salt. Early humans did not consume these products in large quantities, nor do modern-day hunter gatherer tribes, and both populations have/had lower rates of obesity and its co-morbid conditions. It follows that modern humans seeking to improve their health should emulate the [presumed] eating habits of early humans. Sounds like a plan.

False Premises:

1. Evolution has not resulted in substantial changes in the last 20,000 years. Practitioners of paleo dieting insist that we are near biologically identical to our ancestors who inhabited the African Savannah. This contrasts very strongly with actual science, as we are extremely adaptive, even within our own lifetimes. Gene transcription is readily altered with the slightest change in environment, stress, nutrition, or medicine. This is why we all have hundreds of benign cancers in our bodies. Semi-permanent modifications can happen within only a few generations. The vast differences in lactose tolerance among European nations is indicative of how easily we adapt.

2.  Diseases of affluence are a product of agriculture-based diets, rather than by-products of advances in transportation and technology. Most of our ancestors were farming by 2000 BC (before cruci-fiction), some had been since 8000 BC or earlier. The modern obesity epidemic began circa 1970. Throughout the 1950's, there were more reported cases of underweight than overweight children (in America, land of plenty). The 80% grain diet of most peasants for most of history did not result in diabetes, high blood pressure, or obesity, even during times of immense surplus. They no doubt lived short, brutish lives, in constant fear of drought, flood, predators, and landowners, and crippled by the cumbersome nature of their work, but they suffered no diseases of affluence. Even the upper classes, who had access to honey, cheese, olives, salt, and aluminium-tainted white bread, were pathetically frail by modern standards. What they did not have was partially hydrogenated oil, high fructose corn syrup, and 2am delivery service.

3. Paleo dieting was causal, rather than coincidental. There is evidence of a disparity of health between western nations and hunter-gatherer tribes. There is no evidence that a paleolithic diet contributes to the disparity anymore than the absence of footwear, or free hanging breasts. Of course, there are a great many extremely dangerous and unnecessary additives in our food which contribute to our poor health, but our reduced well-being has no bearing on the efficacy of other people's diets. If American life expectancy is shorter than that of any given indigenous population, it is because we lowered ours, not because they raised theirs. Good health and longevity are seen in many diverse populations, all with unique diets and lifestyles. Typical Japanese and Mediterranean cuisine are both high-fat and high-starch, yet both of those populations have superior life expectancy. The only common link of poor health across the world is excessive food processing, toxic by-products (fats and proteins denature and sometimes produce volatile compounds), and a penchant for inactivity. The perceived fitness of tribal populations has a lot more to do with their energy expenditure than their lack of bread.

4. Natural occurrence is linked to natural availability. The paleo diet is founded on a template of elimination, rather than inclusion, that is, it has some cohesive theory about what should not be consumed, but has very little to say on what should be consumed, and why. All wild game and fish are allowed, but how do we verify that our ancestors had access to them? If our ancestors were fishermen for thousands of years, should we consume terrestrial animals? All non-starchy vegetables are allowed, but certainly, the creators of this diet know that before global oceanic trade routes were established, certain vegetation was only available in certain regions. How can I be sure that as an Italian, I can safely and efficiently extract nutrients from a tomato, when that crop is native to Peru? Populations unaccustomed to certain crops may develop food allergies or intolerances, or they may lack sufficient amounts of certain digestive enzymes. If we are to assume that all food is of equal value to all populations, then we may as well claim that there are no variations in human DNA. Do you need to eat beets and liver so your blood cells don't disintegrate? I do.

5. Grain consumption was relatively unknown prior to organized farming. This is a really interesting one, because paleo advocates like to claim that "before" we became farmers, grains were not a significant part of our diets. Surely, however, they must be aware that the variety and abundance of wild grains was far greater in the paleolithic era than it was after the advent of agriculture. Organized farming, especially in advanced societies with barter and trade, is geared towards specialization and yield efficiency. Crops are selectively bred to produce the most marketable products. Far from avoiding gluten, our ancestors were likely exposed to more varieties of wheat in one season than we will ever experience in our lives. If anything, we have become less versatile in digestive capacity, as we no longer have the vestigial structures (functioning appendix, wisdom teeth) of our plant-sampling forebears.

6. Grains are loaded with antinutrients. The compounds of concern are phytic acid (actually far more prevalent in nuts, which are paleo approved), which chelates minerals, and trypsin inhibitors, which prevent hydrolysis of proteins into peptides small enough to be transported into the bloodstream. That paleo dieters have any legitimate concern for mineral balance is absurd, given that any diet based on the paleo model is almost certainly calcium deficient. Further, trypsin inhibitors are only found in substantial quantity in a few legumes (soy, most notably), and their inhibitory effects are transient and quantitatively linked (X mol of trypsin inhibitor can bind X mol of trypsin during a single feeding). The role of antinutrients is insignificant, especially when one considers the benefits of nutrient and energy dense whole grains. Oddly enough, modern-day processed and refined flour is completely bereft of antinutrients, yet is somehow still linked to diseases of affluence. Might have been something other than a 3% reduction in serum zinc that caused you to get diabetes.

A Poor Choice for Athletes

Just because paleo is based on half-truths and faulty reasoning doesn't mean it's ineffective. On the contrary, there are plenty of other reasons why it should be avoided by a person involved in sport.

1. Glucose is the body's preferred fuel source. What this means is not that the body "likes" glucose, but that it can produce the most energy most efficiently from glucose. Other substrates are less efficient, and are used secondarily. In very low intensity aerobic work, glucose demand is fairly low, in most other life activities, glucose demand (that is, stress placed upon the glycolytic energy system) is moderate to high. Engaging in high intensity activity while glycogen depleted is perfectly feasible, but fatty acid oxidation does not provide energy at a sufficient rate, so the body must find other ways to compensate. Possible routes of compensation include destruction of tissues to form ketone bodies, and deamination of proteins to form glucose. Using protein as a fuel source is inefficient (still can't match rate of normal glycolysis), expensive (carbohydrates are comparatively cheap and plentiful), and dangerous (kidneys not equipped to handle mass protein breakdown). Fortunately, you're more likely to push ketosis into ketoacidosis before you're able to strip off enough muscle to shut down your kidneys. Of course, ketoacidosis can simply dehydrate you into a Terry Schiavo coma, so it's a win-win, regardless of which system fails first.

2.  High protein intake increases calcium excretion. This is more than offset by a typical athlete's diet, which contains ample sources of easily absorbed calcium, but not so with a paleo diet. Calcium is required for muscle contraction, variations of which comprise every athletic movement in existence. Mineral imbalances cause cramps, weakness, fatigue, soreness, and impairment of coordination (firing of motor units).

Why You Think It Works, and Why You are Wrong  

1. Immediate and visible weight loss. After a week of paleo dieting you may be "down 6 pounds" and you may "look thinner", but it's very unlikely that your fat mass changed during that time. The starch-free diet results in depletion of glycogen stores. Each glycogen molecule holds three times its weight in water, so your (approximately) one pound of muscle glycogen is holding three pounds of intramuscular water. Protein breakdown and ketosis both have a diuretic effect, the former through production of nitrogen waste, the latter through disruption of mineral balance. The accumulation of waste products, along with the absence of antidiuretic hormones (on account of sodium and potassium loss) causes increased urination. Because fat is anhydrous, and muscle tissue is hydrated by glycogen, the reactions for their breakdown require external water. A drop in subcutaneous water gives the illusion of fat loss, but it's just water loss brought about by a shift in osmolarity.  

2. You are less hungry. You actually aren't. Malnutrition often operates independently of perceived hunger. When you are "hungry", it usually means something has stimulated insulin release, causing you to desire food, regardless of your body's actual requirements. Starving people have a very weak insulin response, and generally experience more pain and fatigue than what we recognize as "hunger". It's a biological adaptation for survival in times of scarcity. If we became ever increasingly hungry in the absence of food, we'd have no clarity of mind, and no way to actually obtain food. After a while, your insulin response becomes weaker, your appetite becomes suppressed, and your metabolism slows. This doesn't mean the diet is "working", it means your body recognizes a state of deficiency, and is adjusting accordingly.

3. It's not sustainable. It has precious little to do with willpower, resolve, or discipline. While your body is given no cue that food is available, it will remain, for the most part, in the aforementioned starving mode. Any stimulus, however, that would have it discern that starvation is not its necessary fate, will send all of the hunger signaling systems into overdrive. This is simple survival instinct. If you go days without food, and stumble into an apple orchard, you'll experience extreme sensitivity towards, smells, sights, and sounds. Every gram of sugar will be cloyingly sweet and infinitely delicious, because your body only understands ensuring its survival. All restricted carbohydrate diets cause extreme rebound hunger upon reintroduction of balanced nourishment. It's much easier to starve to death in nature than in civilization. One teaspoon of oatmeal or crumb of bread will drive a deprived person into a murderous rage. The hypersensitive ravenous state remains active well after all of the lost calories have been accounted for, which is why crash dieters tend to weigh more after relapse than they did before the initial attempt.

The Half-Life of Credibility

There is an expansive disconnect between internet fitness communities and reality. That they wish to dispel commonly held myths perpetuated by marketers and magazines is admirable. Their noble intent, however, does not mitigate the damage done by their fallacious convictions.

There are many highly educated (though unfit and inexperienced) people online, who consider themselves knowledgeable because they have familiarized themselves with a few strength training manuals. Because these people are likely to be fairly successful in their professional or academic lives, they believe themselves inherently competent, especially through the anonymity of the internet. They form in loose confederations of equally uninformed "regular" people, and are quick to declare their superiority over experienced athletes and trainers, who are obviously stupid, as evidenced by their large muscles.

I do not wish to incite my loyal haters, I merely want to explain why none of what they say is true. What very often happens is that facts are well researched, but context, peripheral knowledge, and experience are nonexistent. This inevitably leads to causality by convenience (which I will address at length in my next piece), and confirmation bias.

Almost every commonly held [false] belief is a reductionist interpretation, or improper attribution, of an otherwise legitimate parcel of information.

Reductionism

These ideas are the universally accepted tenets of Bro-ology. They generally involve only a single step in transforming a fact into a conveniently applicable meme.

Fact: Several studies have shown that MTOR response in healthy untrained adult males rises incrementally to protein consumption at 10, 20, and 30 grams, but a similar increase was not witnessed at 40 grams.

Fiction: Can't digest more than 30 grams at a time, brah. Body can't handle it. 

I don't have time or desire to cite the hundreds of other examples, but I am sure you're all familiar with them.

Theory by Convenience

These ideas are those held by the "elite" of untrained nerds with inordinate egos. The sort of garbage you'll find on fitness forums everywhere. Contest any of it, and you're pretty much guaranteed to receive negative reputation. How dare you.

These elaborate jokes generally involve a multi-step approach, where the original [factual] parcel of information is selectively interpreted, then assumed (this is where knowledge and experience would be helpful) to be directly or indirectly causal to all things convenient. Any facts which run counter to the selective interpretation are collectively ignored, and therefore do not exist.

Fact: Essential Amino Acids are required for positive nitrogen balance.

Plausible: We should only count complete protein sources when we set intake goals.

Unlikely: We should try to restrict incomplete protein sources, as they work against our caloric allotment with no discernible benefit.

Fiction: We should eliminate incomplete protein sources, as they can be synthesized internally. 

Of course, they can be synthesized internally, but that line of reasoning completely ignores the biological implications of such a process. The "regular guy" sees all loose ends tied, because he doesn't have the slightest idea what protein synthesis entails, and he interprets "can be synthesized internally" as "great, I don't have to worry about it".

Instead of giving a lecture on deamination, I would ask our internet experts a few questions:

1. What source of nitrogen will be used to create nonessential aminos?

2. Will your hair and nails continue to grow if you remove nonessential aminos from your diet? Will your skin retain its elasticity?

3. If you start an account with $200, and the bank takes $20 to cover its own expenses, do you still have a balance of $200?

Obviously, you do, as the bank can just synthesize its own money.

The Segugio Unified Theory of Cardio for Athletes

Segugio Unified Theory of Cardio for Athletes

A Word on Intensity

It is well established that substrate utilization, though always mixed, is determined primarily by intensity of expenditure. As intensity decreases, B-oxidation (%) increases. As intensity increases, glycolysis (as well as protein breakdown, ketone production, and activation of the phosphagen system) increases. Intensity is negatively correlated with efficiency, that is, fewer units of energy are produced from an equal amount of substrate for equal work. This necessarily “wasteful” practice is one of the reasons that anaerobic (compared to aerobic) exercise results in significantly higher total caloric expenditure. This has also become the basis of many different cardio protocols, as “total expenditure vs. total consumption” has become a popular (but misinformed) line of reasoning in the fitness world.

There are many other factors to consider in selecting the proper exercise intensity for your goals. Anaerobic exercise results in greater post-exercise oxygen consumption, which denotes a [usually insignificant] boost in metabolic activity for several hours afterwards. Despite the inefficient taxing of non-oxidative systems, anaerobic work generally results in more total B-oxidation (though less as a proportion) than an equal quantity of aerobic work. Anaerobic work has drawbacks in that it places greater stress on the CNS, endocrine system, and soft tissues. The immediate and systemic effects of cardiovascular training require thorough analysis, as these adaptations define training. There are, of course, many significant adaptations I do not explicitly mention, along with those that are not yet entirely understood. The following effects are what I believe most relevant to training.

Immediate Effects

Aerobic:
Increased B-oxidation
Improved circulation and removal of metabolic wastes
Small Increase in AMPK activation

Anaerobic:
Increased total expenditure
Increased post-exercise oxygen consumption
Large Increase in AMPK activation
Increased GLUT-4 translocation

Systemic Effects

Aerobic:
Increased mitochondrial density across all muscle fiber types
Increased angiogenesis (increased capillary density and nutrient delivery)
Increased AMPK concentrations in skeletal muscle
Increased GLUT-4 concentrations in skeletal muscle
Increased oxidative enzyme concentrations
Decreased resting energy expenditure
Pro-oxidative shift in muscle fiber composition (IIX->IIB->IIA->I)  

Anaerobic:
Increased glycogen storage capacity
Improved lactate threshold (work required to induce contractile failure)
Improved motor unit recruitment
Improved mineral retention (calcium, sodium, potassium)
Increased glycolytic enzyme concentrations
Decreased resting energy expenditure
Pro-glycolytic shift in muscle fiber composition (I->IIA->IIB->IIX)

Specificity

Notice that the body adapts through both oppositional and complementary pathways. What we perceive as Specialization is really just selective activation/avoidance of different signaling cascades. The most specialized athletes (ultramarathon runners, Olympic lifters) would suffer a performance decrement if they did not deliberately avoid certain stimuli. It is not to the benefit of the former to hold onto heavy and inefficient glycolytic muscle fibers, just as it is not to the benefit of the latter to hold onto inactive oxidative muscle fibers. Most other athletes, however, fall on the spectrum between the two extremes, and would benefit from varying amounts of both types of training.

Effects of Specialization

The last two items (colored red) in each Systemic Effects category are the products of prolonged and intense specialization. Their deliberate separation is intended to highlight two important issues.

1. Resting energy expenditure (or basal metabolic rate, if you prefer) is decreased at either extreme. Type I fibers are energy efficient by definition, and type IIX fibers have a great deal of surface area with relatively few mitochondria. The IIA/B (slow/fast glycolytic) fibers are least energy efficient, and most versatile. Something to consider if you like food.

2. Shift in muscle fiber composition is very very very very very slow. Most humans have roughly the same "default" fiber type scheme based on our physiology. Calves and stability muscles tend to be Type I dominant, Hamstrings and Triceps (for sprinting and pushing) tend to be Type II dominant. Though there is much fear in the strength community concerning light weights and cardiovascular training, it is entirely unfounded. Appreciable aerobic shifts in fiber composition are seen mainly in the quadriceps of distance runners, and the shoulders of marksmen. Anyone not applying a low intensity stimulus for several hours on a daily basis is extremely unlikely to downgrade their IIA fibers.  

Adaptive Cost    

Regardless of one’s psychological objectives, the physiology of the body is interested only in energy efficiency and homeostasis. When an external stimulus is applied, there is an immediate reaction. Repeated application causes adaptation (though not always beneficial). On a hot day, your immediate reaction is to sweat and increase respiration. After a few weeks of brutally hot weather, you might feel spry and euphoric on a slightly less hot day, because your degree of adaptation (Conditioning) is greater than the applied stress. When the stressor no longer exists, your body will de-condition itself, as homeostasis is its sole objective in the absence of orders. The body is fairly proficient at short-term adaptation, as external stimuli may be a sign of danger. For instance, survival-minded people are able to manipulate sodium balance through controlled water intake in just a few days.

Short-term adaptations are generally patchwork solutions which can be easily undone as the environment changes. When someone undertakes weight training for several weeks, they may notice an increase in muscle size and density, due to increased glycogen storage and [corresponding] water retention. Though they would almost certainly like to believe their weight gain to reflect newly acquired tissue, it would be horrendously inefficient for the body to adapt so quickly. To build and then break down 10-15 pounds of tissue on a whim would lead to rhabdomyolisis every time we decided to climb a stair.

Evidence of short-term adaptation can often be tracked with reactionary hormone/enzyme level fluctuations in plasma. Sugar consumption tends to increase insulin output, as protein consumption tends to increase glucagon. Fasting stimulates PDK and inhibits PDP, just as feeding stimulates PDP and inhibits PDK. A resistance training session will increase muscle insulin sensitivity and GLUT-4 transcription for approximately 48 hours. Localized IGF-1 expression may last only a few minutes, and mineral balance adjustments may last a few days. The common traits among these adaptations are transience (the response is limited by the stimulus and/or the body’s systems) and reversibility (the response is connected to a biofeedback system).

Long-Term [Systemic] Adaptations involve a restructuring of tissues to more efficiently accommodate frequently applied acute stimulus. Because structural adaptations are metabolically expensive, the body must be subjected to stress sufficient to “convince” it that future energy efficiency is worth the upgrade cost.

Example:

Month 1: Workout A (200 cal base expenditure) x 30 days = 6,000 cal expenditure

Month 2: Workout A (200 cal base expenditure) / 1.15 (efficiency factor) x 30 days + 1,000 cal adaptive cost = 6,217 cal expenditure

Month 3: Workout A (200 cal base expenditure)/ 1.3 (efficiency factor) x 30 days + 1,000 cal adaptive cost = 5,615 cal expenditure

In this situation it is clearly visible that despite the 2,000 calorie “investment”, total expenditure is less than what it would have been with no adaptation (17,832 vs. 18,000).

Though systemic adaptations result in fewer calories burned for identical work on a perpetually progressive scale, the threshold on PER (Perceived Rate of Exertion) rises at a comparable rate. A sedentary person may inefficiently burn 200 calories by running a mile, and an elite marathoner may efficiently burn 80 calories for the same mile, but it is much easier for the latter to run three, than for the former to run one.

Synergy and Priming

An observant reader will already have gathered that several anaerobic short and aerobic long term adaptations are related, and could be applied in tandem to produce greater (versatile conditioning) results than strict adherence to one style of training.

Priming is defined as ancillary preparation for increased performance in a defined task. Football teams tend to travel to Denver a few days in advance, so that they can better adjust to the oxygen content of the air. Fighters may use a rolling pin to destroy nerves in their shins. A sprinter may perform a certain sequence of calisthenics and stretches prior to every race.

Priming is interesting in that it covers a broad spectrum from ritualistic anxiety reduction (carrying a lucky trinket), to unintentional versatility (an athlete who excels at one sport may be surprisingly adept at another, despite never having played), to synergistic adaptation.

Contrary to the current trends and fads in the fitness community, and irrelevant short-term studies on specialized populations (I’m sorry that certain exercises didn’t increase bone density markers in elderly women undergoing chemotherapy, but that’s not my target demographic), long-term aerobic conditioning leads to tangible physical performance improvements in almost every context.

Anaerobic Work in an Aerobically Conditioned State

It is in the interest of nearly every athlete, particularly strength athletes, to pursue aerobic fitness, for the reasons outlined below.

1. Enhanced Recovery (immediate). Increased circulation expedites the removal of metabolic wastes, and expedites nutrient transport to damaged tissues.

2. Enhanced Recovery (long term). Angiogenesis leads to increased capillary density and enhanced nutrient transport, even when resting.

3. Easier Fat Loss. Thinking about activating some AMPK with a bout of anaerobic work? There's a lot more to activate if you're conditioned.

4. Preferential Glycogen Loading. It's generally in your interest that your muscles express more GLUT-4 than your adipocytes.

5.  Heart Health. I have nothing but admiration and respect for gigantic people who lift outrageous amounts of weight, and I would never suggest refraining from the decadent side of powerlifting for non-athletic concerns (those are none of my business). It's important to to keep the heart well prepared to efficiently move blood around a 400 pound body, especially during prolonged exertion. A lift missed due to vertigo is still a missed lift.

Formulaic Planning

Cardio plans require a great deal of trial and error, because there is really no way to accurately gauge mitochondrial density and efficiency. Some are genetically predisposed towards aerobic efficiency, some are genetically predisposed towards high glycogen storage. Genes, environment, food, and exercise all play extensive roles in how well we adapt.

Most people don't have the means to conduct enzyme tests during cardio, so our starting point should reflect typically observed responses. Further calibration is done on an individualized basis, though a [real] trainer is very highly recommended. There is no amount of expertise that can replace another set of trained eyes.

Fasted AM Cardio

The popular misconception is that fasted AM cardio is made effective by the presence of ketones or the absence of glycogen. Though both of those conditions would lead to greater fat utilization, they are not specific to a fasted state. One could produce ketones at any time of day. Similarly, one can be depleted of glycogen at any time of day.

The efficacy of fasted AM cardio comes from the pro-oxidative enzymes released during fasting, namely the expression of [PDK] Pyruvate Dehydrogenase Kinase and [LPL] Lipoprotein Lipase. These enzymes, left undisturbed, also (partially) inhibit the production of other substrate-specific enzymes. Because substrate utilization is mostly dependent on intensity, sleep is the most proportionately oxidative activity one can undertake. These two factors create an environment where near 90% of expenditure is fatty acid oxidation.

Split Session Cardio

Every bout of cardio separated by enough rest will incur an activation cost, as well as an increase in post-exercise oxygen consumption. Activation of the sympathetic nervous system results in increased AMPK and glucagon expression. The latter is particularly important during strict dieting, where insulin spikes cause cravings of unfathomable severity. Split Session Cardio is also of benefit to athletes who are required to train at high intensity, allowing partial restoration of glycogen and phosphagen.

Post-Workout Cardio

This is also made more effective by glycogen depletion and presence of ketones, but, just as with AM Cardio, that's not really its defining mechanism of action. Weight training increases AMPK, IGF-1, and Growth Hormone production. A low insulin environment allows the GH free reign to mobilize fat stores. The IGF-1 expression is local to the trained muscles, and has nothing to do with plasma IGF-1, which is decreased by aerobic exercise. It's also important to note that, assuming adequate nutrition, there is very little risk of protein degradation. Muscles begin repairing themselves immediately; they don't disintegrate in 30 minutes, due to the absence of your post-workout shake, as supplement companies would have you believe. The acute response to muscle damage is local. No matter what you decide to do after you lift, your muscles will be repairing themselves with available resources. Nutrient sensitivity is enhanced for 48 hours. You can activate MTOR 16 times before your next training session. Do your cardio.
  
Consideration: Fasted Sustained vs. Split Session

The increased rate of B-oxidation from fasted (10-14hr) morning cardio makes it ideal for the cutting athlete. Because substrate systems shift perpetually towards B-oxidation as duration increases, it would make sense to do one prolonged AM cardio session for maximal fat loss. Those with athletic considerations, however, should be wary of protein breakdown, which also increases over time, due to the steady depletion of glycogen stores. Split sessions offer the advantage of a second activation cost; the thermic effect of the body’s shift into a prepared aerobic state. Split sessions also allow partial restoration of glycogen stores, which would result in less protein breakdown (via greater glycolysis), given identical expenditure. A cardio plan designed for maximum efficiency should take these variables into consideration.

Example:

AM Cardio: (450 cal base expenditure) (F) (AC) (+)Modified: (D)

PM Cardio: (450 cal base expenditure) (AC) (+)Modified: (D)

Split Session: (225 cal base expendtiture) (F) (AC) + (225 cal base expenditure) (AC)

Key:

(F) – Fasted State, increases total fatty acid oxidation
(AC) – Activation Cost, increases total energy expenditure (substrate varies with availability)
(D) – Duration, increases % of total energy expended via B-oxidation

Limitations

Though B-oxidation will proceed practically undisturbed for the duration of your fast, there are retaliatory mechanism which activate at around the 12 hour mark, and increase dramatically by the 18 hour mark. The most significant of these are the buildup of enzymes for de novo lipogenesis, and increased insulin receptivity of adipocytes.

Training beyond one's capacity can result in negative CNS effects. Fatigue, irritability, and extreme hunger may result from a very long training session. Dividing the workload between two sessions would have resulted in roughly the same benefits, and posed less risk of unintended effects.

Sport-specific training has a separate set of protocols. The biochemistry is the same, but attenuation procedures and training goals are different. If someone is building endurance for 30-40 mile hikes, they would very clearly benefit from prolonged training sessions, and probably don't need to be concerned with fasting or intra-workout calorie restriction. This guide is primarily for strength and physique athletes.

The Segugio Cardio Template

This is a basic progression scheme that I've found effective for increasing aerobic workload without peripheral effects. An untrained person would start at 30 minutes daily, adding 10 minutes every week, to be done in a single session, up to 80 minutes. The next week's 90 minutes would be split 45/45. The following three weeks would add 10 minutes to the first session only (75/45). Every week that follows adds 10 minutes to every morning session, and 5 minutes to every evening session: 85/50, 95/55, 105/60, 115/65, 125/70, 135/75. It is limited at 3.5 hours, because anyone requiring longer duration is likely training for specific endurance adaptations.

The intensity for all session is low to medium. Because high intensity work taxes the CNS, it should be planned separately, and given the same consideration as any other form of anaerobic work.

Closing Remarks

To be aerobically conditioned is to be metabolically primed for success. One would, in fact, be at a severe disadvantage by not being adequately conditioned, as they are limiting their training efficacy and capacity for recovery. There has been a dramatic shift in exercise theory over the past decade, and it is reflected (and perpetuated) by out of shape "athletes" suddenly finding the training programs and diets of years past to be ineffective.

Many trainers, bereft of actual knowledge or experience, are die-hard proponents of the newest or trendiest training style. Visible progress has been replaced by unwarranted self-importance. You may notice that "trainers" in your gym are identifiable only by their uniforms. You may notice obese or naive clients who "train" for years under the guidance of these idiots, and remain obese and naive, but pick up an attitude along the way. Why is this?

1. Physical adaptations require frequent stimulus over very long periods of time.

2. People want immediate results.

3. There is no way to get immediate results. Options:

4a. Tell people the inconvenient truth, suggest setting long-term goals.

4b. Promise immediate results, set arbitrary progress markers, pretend that they are all being met. This is actually what Mussolini's General Staff did for most of the 1930s. Worked out well for them, I've heard.

Because it's not enough to want immediate results, people also want convenient workouts. They never have "time". The fitness industry has always made money from convenience scams, but this sort of nonsense has worked its way into mainstream fitness culture. Most trainers in the 90s would have laughed at "8 minute abs" or "the thighmaster", but today, there is hardly anyone who doesn't swear by bosu balls, crossfit, or functional training. The goals of "lose weight", "gain muscle", "get stronger", "get faster" are in demand, just as they were in times past, but arbitrary progress markers give insecure people self-esteem, which is really why they were interested in fitness in the first place.

It's not unproductive, it's counterproductive. Contemporary program design is centered around bypassing the first five years of training, with the primary goal of a session being that people brag to their equally ignorant friends. To this end, you will see people who have never lifted a barbell attempting broom handle snatches, pushing a weighted sled, or doing curls on a bosu ball. Cardio protocol (in the rare event that it exists) is always HIIT. Always. Though it's the least effective form of exercise for an untrained person, it has two very important marketing advantages:

1. It doesn't take very long.

2. Shortness of breath and profuse sweating are misinterpreted as accomplishments

The disgusting state of affairs in the fitness world is fueled by society's self-deluded and hubristic nature. The same statement could have probably been made at any time in history, but this is the first time that the nucleus of the fitness world is comprised of baseless drivel. In the era of unlimited information, we've become too self-absorbed to learn.