Fact Check: Metabolic Damage

I strongly prefer to present the affirmative truth, rather than challenge the claims of other fitness personae, but this rebuttal was specifically requested, and I'm not one to deny pleasures.

I've always had mixed opinions towards the ideas of Layne Norton, but it's safe to say he's not my least favorite person in the world. I recently watched his Metabolic Damage series (biolayne 9, 15, 16, 20). My assessment is provided below.

Opening disposition: 0 (neutral)
Bonus: +10 for hating Lyle McDonald
Penalty: -10 for exceptionally boring videos

biolayne 9

4:33  "...they essentially get no caloric value from that type of cardio"
In reference to people on very low calorie diets. It's one thing to argue about a reduced metabolic rate, it's quite another to claim that hungry people are able to create ATP without substrates.

8:28 "...it's also there to maximize your metabolic capacity"
In reference to ideal utilization of an offseason period. We are in absolute agreement.

10:33 "...really focus on slowly and deliberately adding calories over time"
In reference to intake progression during the offseason. Agree. There should be regular minute transition phases between the peak of a precontest diet and the peak of an offseason diet.  

11:03 "...you should eat the maximum amount of calories that you possibly can while still losing bodyfat at the appropriate rate"
In reference to not drastically cutting calories during contest prep. This guy seems legit, I'm starting to wonder why someone would consider us so different.

12:19 "...low intensity cardio has been shown to reduce metabolic rate over time"
Ah. Curiosity sated. It's technically not an inaccurate statement, it's just an irrelevant one. Aerobic fitness reduces your resting metabolic rate (2-5%). I sure hope so. If you get winded during the walk from your parking spot to your destination, you'll burn more calories on the trip than a fit person. I think I'll accept the trade-off and just park a little farther from the door.

12:46 "... you actually get to the point where you need that amount of cardio just to maintain your weight"
No. You don't get 100% energy efficiency from becoming aerobically fit. Over time, you'll require less energy expenditure to do the same task, but the decline in expenditure does not cover the increase in ability.

Running at 6mph for 1 hour may initially burn 1,200 calories
When you've become fit, it may only burn 900 calories
At that level of fitness, you can maintain an 8mph pace at the same PER (perceived exertion rate) for the hour, and burn 1,400 calories

Even if you choose not to progress, and even at maximal efficiency, that hour of running will still incur the energy costs of work. You still moved an object from point A to point B using ATP as fuel, even if you used 1/4 of the fuel an obese person would require. Energy efficiency is not energy independence!

13:16 "...I would even say one hour of low intensity cardio a day is complete overkill"
Sure sounds like it. If it's a 20 minute walk to the train station, and the elevator is broken at work, you need to be sure to bring a wheelchair, lest you destroy your mitochondria from such reckless expenditure. We are aerobic creatures! It takes about 90 minutes to even achieve maximum substrate efficiency (where your body is maximally reliant on beta-oxidation for energy production). Looks like someone needs to read The Seugio Unified Theory of Cardio.

13:33 "...but think about a marathon runner, or a swimmer, or somebody who does a ton of low intensity cardio. If you look at somebody training for a marathon, there is no way they should be able to eat enough calories to maintain their bodyweight, but they do (maintain their weight)"
You mean like Michael Phelps? Or triaheletes who eat 6-7,000 calories on a training day? The above quote is absolutely baseless. Layne might believe that endurance athletes simply exist at the same weight regardless of diet, but they're often just as dedicated to their nutrition as people in the strength world.

14:27 "...Anybody who's been through a long contest prep doing a lot of low intensity cardio probably knows exactly what I'm talking about."
I sure don't, but maybe I'm stupid. Maybe if you explained it to Jay Cutler or Kai Greene. Low intensity steady-state cardio seems to work for every Mr. Olympia ever, and Ronnie Coleman won eight straight. According to Layne, low intensity cardio stops working after an initial metabolic adjustment, but somehow, Coleman was able to get lean every year using the same stairmaster. Someone should go tell those guys that they're wasting their time.

14:39 "...Low intensity steady state cardio is a mindless easy form of cardio"
I think someone is confusing an old lady falling asleep on a treadmill for a trained athlete maintaining a steady pace for 90 minutes.

15:06 "...An hour of steady state cardio at 3mph on a treadmill, either that, or doing six 30-second sprints"
In reference to a study demonstrating that the aforementioned sprint intervals proved more successful at targeting bodyfat. Somehow I feel it fair to infer that the people involved in this experiment were not exactly stellar athletes. Untrained people responding to severe adaptive stress vs. using artificially low intensity to ensure no aerobic adaptations occur. Perhaps this dumb shit can convince people with no background in science, but it's utter garbage to the trained eye.

15:50 "...I don't wanna hear about 'you burn a greater percentage of fat while burning low intensity cardio' "
I wonder why. Is it because it's true? Yeah, better to not hear it then; people hate the truth.

21:48 "...That dieting and binging cycle is about the worst thing you can go through"
Advocating slow diet transitions. Now he's making sense again.

23:32 "...They end up spinning their wheels over time"
In reference to people who plan unreasonably restrictive diets and compensate with a weekly cheat meal. I've warned time and time again about not underestimating the power of insulin. His rationale may be different, but we agree on planning diets with no cheat meals.

25:19 "...Or maybe even some low intensity cardio"
In reference to people finding ways to continue progressing without drastic cuts in calories. I agree with his statement. I don't think he agrees with his statement.

biolayne 15

7:10 "...I'm talking about anybody who wants long term fat loss"
In reference to the importance of metabolic capacity for the achievement of goals. Absolutely. There will be a Segugio article on this very topic in the near future.

9:20 "...Eating as many calories as you possibly can, doing as little cardio as you possibly can, while still losing weight"
In reference to weight loss at the beginning of a cut. It's valid to an extent, but the benefits of cardio generally far exceed the benefits of inefficient metabolism.

10:22 "...You add calories extremely slowly"
In reference to using very slow caloric progression rather than transition phases when starting a bulk. Again, I agree that his argument is valid, but he seems to have convinced himself that expenditure doesn't exist. He's advocating that calories be raised in very small (~30) weekly increments. It's not wrong, it's just almost impossible to do. Let's hope his athletes are mindful of the extra oat flake that fell out of the scoop. Don't eat it... he's watching.

biolayne 16

10:47 "...The bodyfat set point theory"
I don't care to discuss this at length at the moment, suffice to say we agree.

17:06 "...Exercise induced thermogenesis goes down"
In reference to steady state cardio (of course). Not incorrect, just entirely misleading.

19:04 "...The adaptations your body makes while you're doing that is trying to get you back to homeostasis"
In reference to the body's propensity to set conditions for fat storage during very low calorie diets. This is proven. I addressed it as a consideration when planning fasted cardio. Yes, my article really was that good.

29:07 "...If we go very low calorie with excessive exercise"
This accounts for two entirely separate conditions. Just because they're often done in tandem doesn't mean their effects are interchangeable.

31:36 "...And now you're doing that two hours of cardio a day"
False premise. This is again presenting cardio as an intrinsic by-product of a starvation diet.

33:00 "...Fat loss resumes"
In reference to slowly cutting intake to maintain rate of fat loss after creating an "energy cushion" (amirite) via increase of metabolic capacity. I agree. I'm just curious as to why someone who has championed maintaining the highest possible level of caloric intake doesn't first increase expenditure. The Segugio would. Ooooooh.

35:22 "...If you don't plan for this stuff, you're going to fail"
In reference to understanding your body's defense mechanisms deployed during periods of caloric restriction. Correct. This is why crash diets don't work. The reference used here was rather excellent.

biolayne 20

5:59 "...What I'm not okay with is suffering for the sake of suffering"
It doesn't have to be related to fitness. I addressed this concern in a piece I wrote while in service.

Closing disposition: -1 (slightly unfavorable)
(11 positive, 12 negative, 3 neutral) I started with a mixed opinion of his work, and I'm ending with about the same opinion. Alright then, cardio time.

The Other Segugio Squat Protocol

The Other Segugio Squat Protocol: Erection Training for Sport

Success, the recipe:

Step 1: Read the original Segugio Squat Protocol
Step 2: Determine eligibility
Step 3: Execute. Read The Other Segugio Squat Protocol if ineligible.
Step 4: Execute.

The purpose is once again to increase strength, power, and work capacity. The difference here is versatility; this program can be used during most phases of training for most athletes. While the original better caters to strength athletes and offseason bodybuilders, this program can be effectively used by a much larger demographic. This program may be preferable to the original if any of the following apply:

1. You have 2-4 years of training experience.
2. Your intake is within 5% of BMR. (You are cutting, but not through drastic restriction)
3. You make excuses and wind up training only 4x/week
4. You wanna be a bodybuilder, but don't wanna lift no heavy ass weight

Though I like to write my programming in 7+1 double mesocycles, this program is better applied as a 16 week linear block. Ideally, this program would be run as a 6-Day Split, but since catering to the lazy and inept is fashionable these days, it will run effectively enough given the following provisos:

1. The heavy and light day are set 48 hours apart
2. Isolation/weak point training/low intensity cardio is the only training permitted within the aforementioned 48 hour squat hiatus.
3. Lower body isolation work and low intensity cardio is strongly encouraged on the day after the light session.
4. Deadlifting is only permitted within 48 hours of completing the light session.

Disclaimer: No one can ever claim to have invented anything in the fitness world. That being said, I independently developed this methodology about 10 years ago through trial and error, and have never seen anyone else advocate it.

The training is organized along the lines of something I've named the over/under principle, which, according to google, apparently has something to do with knitting or pond draining. The principle is to train a muscle group in a different manner for a number (>2) of consecutive days, then to abstain from training it for approximately the same time period. I've found it to be a very effective way to prepare for powerlifting contests, but it's just as good for hypertrophy.

Ideal split:

Monday: Press
Tuesday: Pull
Wednesday: Heavy Squat/Legs
Thursday: Isolation/Weak Point/Cardio
Friday: Light Squat/Legs
Saturday: Deadlift/Lower Body Isolation
Sunday: Off/Cardio

Our lower body "overtraining" period is from Wednesday to Saturday, followed by three consecutive days of rest. If you are one of those people who enjoys pretending to be busy, upper body training can be divided amongst the OT days, and the three days of rest can be used for kite flying, hoop rolling, shoe shining, or whatever other hijinks you ragamuffins get into these days.

Unlike the original program, the intensities outlined are derivatives of your actual tested 1RM. Not your assumed 1RM. Not your projected 1RM. Not your "I have at least another 20 pounds in me" 1RM. Not your 1RM from high school. Test fresh, with >120s intervals, and regular increments of progression. Be sure to have a trained spotter. Not a liver spot, not your dog spot, but MY spot.

Modus Operandi:

Initial Week:

Heavy Day: 6x6@55%, 2-1-X-2 (or other momentum-free tempo of choice), 60 second interval
Light Day: 5x10@45%, 2-1-X-2 (or other momentum-free tempo of choice), 45 second interval
Assume a tested 1RM of 400 for the examples.

Heavy Day progresses with full increments (10 lbs. for most) at half volume (3 of 6 sets) every week. All increases in weight are front-loaded.

Correct: 6x6@220, [3x6@230, 3x6@220], 6x6@230, [3x6@240, 3x6@230], 6x6@240

Stupid Idiot: 6x6@220, 6x6@230, 6x6@240

Light Day progresses with full increments every fourth week. Power (work/time) output increases every week with the cyclical scheme of (5x10, 4x12, 3x16, 2x20). Variance in total workload is generally insignificant, but work efficiency is nearly doubled. Intervals are 45s for the first two weeks, 60s for the third week, and 90s for the fourth week. The intervals are scaled to allow for more rest, increasing the likelihood of set completion, while still ensuring increased work efficiency.

Week 1: 10 reps | (45) | 10 reps | (45) | 10 reps | (45) | 10 reps | (45) | 10 reps
Week 2: 12 reps | (45) | 12 reps | (45) | 12 reps | (45) | 12 reps

Week 3: 16 reps | (60) | 16 reps | (60) | 16 reps
Week 4: 20 reps | (90) | 20 reps

Relative work efficiency:

Week 1: 50 reps x 180 pounds = 9,000 pounds total work / 180 seconds rest = 50
Week 2: 48 reps x 180 pounds = 8,640 pounds total work / 135 seconds rest =  64
Week 3: 48 reps x 180 pounds = 8,640 pounds total work / 120 seconds rest =  72
Week 4: 40 reps x  180 pounds = 7,200 pounds total work / 90 seconds rest = 80
Week 16: 40 reps x 210 pounds = 8,400 pounds total work / 90 seconds rest = 93

The technical measure of total power output would require the inclusion of time under tension. Though total power output would more precisely gauge mechanical efficiency, our primary concern is athletic performance, for which my modified scale is a better indicator. Time under tension should not be punitive (as it would be on a raw power scale), as there is still work being performed in the eccentric and isometric portions of the lift, as well as the rack, step-out, and re-rack process.

Time under tension is "athlete time" as far as I'm concerned. The concentric work should begin from a paused loaded position, and end in a stable isometric. Excessive use of momentum would give a larger, though highly misleading calculation of "efficiency", but more meaningful work is being done by using strict form.

Contingency Plans:

There shouldn't have to be any. If you absolutely must put the weight down, take a 5 minute break, reset yourself, and reattempt.

Other Thoughts:

Do not neglect training abduction and hip extension during isolation day(s), especially if you squat with an olympic stance. Cardio, as always, means low to moderate intensity.

The Perils of Specificity II: Satyracromion

We can define "training" as our deliberate attempts to promote adaptation. This is in contrast to "exercise", which often serves a vaguely defined purpose, the achievement of which is generally dependent on one's endorphin response. There is no objective affirmation or denial of whether an individual has "broken a good sweat" or "got their heart pumping". Still, any activity undertaken will have physical consequence, even in the absence of physiological adaptation. In training, we use specific intensities (%1RM), tempos, and intervals in an attempt to efficiently achieve our desired results. Though a hypertrophic response may be elicited through our deliberate work (say, 4 sets of barbell curls), we still activate the same muscles throughout the day (perhaps to raise a beverage) in the execution of our non-exercise physical activity. This "collateral activation", as I alluded to in the last segment, does not create a stimulus for physiological adaptation (you don't become appreciably stronger, no matter how many sips you take from your glass), but it very well may have a physical consequence. Of course, I'm not one to neglect these delicate topics which others often fail to even discover.

A muscle contraction involves the physical shortening of agonist fibers, and the corresponding lengthening of antagonist fibers via reciprocal inhibition. The problem with everyday activity is that there are very few opportunities to use the full range of motion of any given muscle group. As a result, most of our [mechanical] work is done in narrow ranges and with a strong isometric component. A waiter may have an extremely well developed anterior deltoid in the first 30 degrees of shoulder flexion, but lacks balanced development of the posterior deltoid in shoulder extension. The imbalance increases the likelihood of acute injury, but there is the more pressing (get it?) issue of the static forces which keep the muscle activated long after the restaurant closes. The chronic shortening of one muscle causes the chronic lengthening (and weakening) of its antagonist. This scenario isn't exactly ideal in regards to the structural integrity of the joints and soft tissues.

It is not, however, a problem reserved only for those with isometric-intensive professions. I would not be writing this article were it not relevant to the fitness community. Not only do we consider ourselves immune to imbalances, we often refuse to acknowledge our injuries. I am particularly guilty of expressing my denial as: "I always do everything right, my elbow/shoulder/back/knee hurts for no fucking reason!" To be fair, I was entirely unaware of why I was mistaken before a very recent epiphany... why did I raise my head during my deadlift again?

No, that's far too simple. Why did my neural programming resort to activating my splenius capitis, thereby putting me in the dangerous position of neck extension? It very clearly should have activated my longus capitis, and thus maintained the proper position of neck flexion. I must admit that I do not use isolation exercises to target my neck flexors and extensors, despite the availability of the equipment to do so. That explains why I'm currently unbalanced, but it doesn't explain how I became unbalanced. Plenty of people without my knowledge and experience manage to avoid neck extension while pulling. Since I don't activate it properly in isolation, why would I have activated it improperly in isolation? I had not, of course... and here begins our fun.

I spent about a week with severely limited mobility; I could not comfortably sit, and while standing was possible for short periods of time, I much preferred to lean on things, or to lay in a contorted position in an effort to reduce the compression force(s) on my lumbar spine. I had been achy and tired the week before, so I tried to make the most of it, and thought of it as forced recovery time. Several days into my new concurrent training regimen of pretzels (superset with frosty flakes) and netflix (superset with soundcloud), I noticed that I had very painful bilateral shoulder impingement, very likely the worst I had ever experienced. Considering that I would be furious to have any sort of injury while lifting up to and including infinity hundred pounds, you can imagine that I did not qualify the lateral raising of my cereal bowl as a legitimate cause for pain. Though my severe demands for answers would have frightened any rational acromion out of my supraspinatus, mine required an attitude adjustment... rather, an altitude adjustment. While looking in the mirror for any indication of abnormal function, I wondered how, days removed from any deliberate exertion, I could have provided a disproportionate stimulus to the muscles which cause impingement. Scapular elevation, shoulder flexion, elbow flexion, medial rotation... and then it clicked. The man in the mirror was suddenly familiar to me.

I often play a curious game, it involves using the oral cavity in the creation of a pressure gradient while simultaneously engaging the glossal muscles in rhythmic circumduction. The game is self-correcting, in that it scales in difficulty as you advance in ability. Assuming standard starting position, the irregular (indeed spasmodic) forces which would deviate a sport enthusiast from his/her preferred dynamic and tempo can only be counterbalanced with forces generated at the glenohumeral joint, most of which involve medial rotation. A few hours of uninterrupted playtime can (and will) severely shorten the agonist muscles and leave one in a postural mess not unlike that encountered with upper cross syndrome. An innocuous leisure activity causing severe pain and structural imbalance in a highly trained, flexible, and mobile athlete. Humorous as the premise may seem, it's very real, and very relevant to our profession. I've since developed the habit of performing sit-ups (with isometric neck flexion) and planks (for scapular depression) on a daily basis. It took about 10 days to get rid of the imbalance (which I hereby name Gladiator Syndrome), and I'm now pain free.

TLDR: I am advocating the use of exercises to specifically target the antagonist muscles of those employed during non-exercise physical activity. It's imperative to not confuse physiological adaptations with physical reactions. My muscles did not become any bigger or stronger by maintaining a certain posture, but they certainly became shorter. Having chronically tight hamstrings or traps is not a matter to be dismissed. There's a reason for it, and if you're following a sound training protocol, it's something you're doing outside of the gym. Drop your ego, drop your political correctness, and evaluate yourself. It's preferable to exercise a bit of vigilance in observing your movement patterns than to let your habits surface during your training.

"Well, there goes the meet. Idiot can't keep his head down. Hope it was worth it."

In your mind, of course: Was Amazing

Though with a bit of mindfulness, earthly pleasures and peak performance can co-exist. If you play piano, do planks. If you wait tables, do rows. If partying demands that you constantly raise the roof, be sure that a similar attitude towards excess be employed on the lat pulldown. You may wave your hands in a manner which implies indifference, but you really should care. It's just a matter of being responsible.

Until next time.

     

The Perils of Specificity I: A Delegation to The Mayor of Chincinnati

I recently suffered a minor back injury while performing a conventional deadlift. I believed it to be little more than a re-aggravation of an older injury (compression of L5/S1) due to the sciatica and immobility which accompanied it. Upon further reflection, I've become skeptical of my original hypothesis. There were no indicators of chronic injury, as I had experienced no pain while moving similar loads during high bar squats several days prior, and the injury in question was sustained suddenly and unexpectedly during the third set in a series. The weight and intensity were submaximal (singles at ~80%), and the interval was adequate (90-120s). Ruling out pre-existing injuries and fatigue, the only plausible cause is a breakdown in form.

Shocking, yes? The strength specialist form nazi lost his bearing on a submaximal deadlift. I wasn't paying attention, simple as that. My mind was drifting off into space, and I didn't bother to take the weight seriously. Plenty of lifters (many better than I) hurt themselves by not paying attention; this phenomenon is not exactly news. The item of particular interest in regards to injuries sustained during high intensity closed chain movements is personal variability. In comparison, chronic elbow pain during extension is usually tendonitis, and shin splints are generally a product of anterior tilt. I would never advocate diagnosing an injury based on the frequency of its occurrence, but very often (on the internet, for example) one is not able to personally supervise a series of diagnostic tests and palpate adjacent muscles, so the probable response based on the information given must suffice.

So why did The Segugio's form break? Ever cognizant of my passionate and controversial (but biomechanically advantageous and therefore correct) advocacy of a low (knee and hip flexion beyond 90 degrees) starting position, I immediately assumed that I must have prematurely raised my hips. Again, this idea did not hold to scrutiny. Thought my hip position may have been less than ideal, I would have been perfectly able to slowly grind out a rep using my hamstrings were that the only deficiency. What happened instead was a break just below the knee, and a dropped weight. I had raised my head, throwing my once neutral spine out of alignment, and prompting the generation of shear forces against the line of pull of my erectors (amirite).

Good. Stop being stupid and keep your head straight. But there's a lot more to it than that. A break in form is usually caused by a reversion to intuitive (as opposed to trained) motor patterns. In our day to day activities, we benefit far more from fine motor control than high threshold recruitment, so we tend to sacrifice mechanical efficiency for practical convenience. It's "easier" to bend at the waist and pull to pick something up than to sink to your heels and drive upwards, despite the fact that you can only generate a fraction of the force. Untrained people seem to walk with their quads, lift with their backs, and use their shoulders to push and pull. Ask someone to do a push-up, and they'll spread their hands a mile apart, then hunch over it while sinking at the hips. Ask someone to pull and they'll medially rotate with flexed elbow (think arm wrestling).

As fitness professionals, we remain mindful to avoid falling into these improper movement patterns. We barely notice activating our lats to pull a door shut, or pushing a grocery cart with retracted scapulae. We're always highly aware of our bodies in the execution of the mundane; never failing to sit using hip flexion or to maintain a soft knee and tight core while standing. This mindfulness, useful as it is, can lead us to believe ourselves immune to muscle imbalances, and cause us to neglect active injury prevention (or pre-hab, if you will).

An untrained person is far more likely to have an inhibition/compensation complex, such as upper cross syndrome (see title), but chronic unintentional activation can still cause imbalances. There won't necessarily be a visible discrepancy in muscle size or strength, but there will be a greater intuitive reliance on contracting a muscle that has adjusted to prolonged periods of shortening. In other words, someone with slumped shoulders and/or rounded back may feel quite comfortable in their contorted position(s). If an imbalanced position becomes ingrained in the mind as de-facto anatomical, then one will unconsciously seek to return to said position in the absence of mindful stimulus. We can all force ourselves into a proper starting position (assuming adequate flexibility and mobility), but how we "unfold" in our moments of mindlessness is dependent on the incidental programming we code with every last bit of energy made kinetic. The existence of "collateral activation" is the topic of our sequel.

Brace yourselves. Will be amazing.