So; sore muscles are good for you!

Here is a well-written expression of the "party line" that is taken by most medical and physical conditioning experts about delayed onset muscle soreness:

"The good soreness that makes you stronger is called DOMS (Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness) and is caused by microscopic tears in your muscle fibers. It is not caused by lactic acid buildup. When muscles are damaged, they produce healing prostaglandins that cause muscles to become bigger and stronger than before they were exercised vigorously".

Gary Moller comments:
So, DOMS is "good soreness! This is rubbish. DOMS is not good for you.

For a start, the damage to healthy cells which you feel as pain, swelling and stiffness (DOMS), releases massive amounts of cell debris into the body. This debris is toxic to healthy cells, principally because it is rich with oxidants that damage the healthy tissue that is already depleted and exhausted following the workout. Flooding the body with oxidising toxins accelerates the ageing processes. This might be why excessive exercisers do not live as long as those who exercise moderately.

Recovery from exercise that causes DOMS takes from 2-5 days and further vigorous exercise within that period will delay recovery and may even lead to complete breakdown in the form of an injury or infection.

A further problem with doing too much exercise that causes DOMS is the steady loss of flexibility. As any long distance runner will ably demonstrate, the steady loss of flexibility causes the eventual grinding to a halt with passing years. This is because the repair process always has the damaged tiisue shorten and harden a little each time. Again, any runner will tell you that attempts at maintaining flexibility by stretching is painful futility. In fact, most runners give up, other than during token spells such as during injury time!

Exercise:
Take several people off the street and have them walk as fast as they can up the stairwell to the top of the tallest building you can get access to. Have them come down in the lift. Take another group and take them to the top of the building and have them walk quickly to the bottom. Contact them 2 days later and have them rate 0-10 any DOMS.

What you should discover is the group that walked up will report little or no DOMS than the other who will probably report being semi-crippled and this will last several days!

This demonstrates that not all exercise is the same; despite the walking down was far less strenuous, the strenuous walking up was far less damaging to the body. Furthermore, the down walkers, have significant losses of leg flexibility and this loss is lasting.

Conclusion:
Exercise that has the muscles actively resisting being lengthened (eccentric contractions) causes DOMS; whereas exercise that has the muscles actively shortening (concentric contractions) only has little or no DOMS. Activities that have high amounts of eccentric include: running, lifting and lowering weights, jumping and lunging. Activities that do not have much eccentric work include: swimming, paddling, cycling, pushing hydraulic exercise machines and walking on the flat.

Try cycling for example: With no preparation, go ride for as long and as hard as you can. The chances are you will have a really sore bum from the seat, a stiff neck and sore hands from a poor bike setup; but your thighs which you thrashed to a standstill will only be mildly sore and tired the following day. By day 2-3 you will be easily able to repeat the workout. Now, I would never suggest that you attempt the equivalent with eccentric-soaked running, would I?

Final Conclusion:
Not all exercise is the same and don't believe everything the experts say. Finally, if you want to slow the ageing process and to be physically active well into old age, I advise you to choose your exercises with care.

Working out in the gym - balance between cardio and strength training?

I am 51 & try to get to the gym 4 times a week. What balance between cardio & resistance training should I do?
Ron
_________________________________________
Gary Moller comments:
(This was first published on www.grownups.co.nz)
Ron,

• To improve an aspect of fitness, such as strength, you need to do three exercise sessions per week.
• To maintain an aspect of fitness, such as strength, you need to do two exercise sessions per week.
• A well structured cardio or strength training programme will have overlap of both.

If you work indoors, then cardio exercise is best done outdoors, even during the depths of winter, because bright sunlight and fresh air are essential for physical and mental health. This can be any form of exercise that has you puffing a little for 20 minutes or longer and can include a brisk walk to and from work weekdays and a long walk during the weekend.

So, to improve strength above where it is right now: do 3-4 gym workouts per week and do so for about six weeks. Do two quality cardio exercise sessions per week. Better still, walk to work daily.

After six weeks, reduce the gym work to 2-3 sessions per week and divert more energy into the outdoors cardio exercise for about 6 weeks.

After six weeks, switch the emphasis back to the gym. Body and mind will love these swings back and forth.

Set yourself goals that challenge and inspire. For example; your goal might be to walk the Tongariro crossing in 6 weeks time. Another might be to take your lover for a romantic paddle down the Wanganui River in springtime, so that you can show off your chiseled chest and paddling prowess!

Got the idea Ron?

Thermogenics - the latest fad leading athletes off track

"Put simply a thermogenic is any product that increases thermogenesis (heat production) in the human body. Heat is a by product of metabolism so when more heat is being produced this means that more calories are being used. This is in isolation from activity. Obviously this has had big implications for the fitness industry because if you are using more calories for no greater input of activity the result should be greater fat loss. Added to this is the fact that most thermogenic compounds are very stimulatory giving greater energy and decreased rates of perceived exertion and also have nutrient partitioning effects (greater utilization of fat over other fuels). The impact thermos have had on the industry is profound at it’s easy to see why.

Picture: Once on the slippery slope of substance abuse, where does it end?

There has always been a running battle between the supplement formulators and regulatory bodies and it seems that there are always compounds being banned only for others to take their place."

(The author goes on to list and explain the various substances that are banned and those that are still legal and how they work - Gary)

"For performance benefits I would suggest sticking with caffeine as a stimulant but be careful to not exceed allowable levels if you are subject to drug testing. Neurotransmitter formulas may prove VERY effective and would provide focus and decreased RPE without a stimulatory action and I theorise that in conjunction with certain adaptogenic compounds and caffeine with tyrosine would kick ass (watch this space ;) ! )

If you are needing to lose bodyfat……sort your diet out! Once you have sorted that out with the help of a good consultant you could look at one of the synephrine and caffeine, green tea formulas to speed things up. Also drink tea frequently, I really can’t see a down side to drinking tea, it’s thermogenic, increases insulin sensitivity and is a potent antioxidant! Only use dedicated thermogenic formulas for a set defined goal, don’t just take them in the hope that without changing anything else you’ll develop a lean physique…it just ain’t gonna happen!"
For the full article by Cliff Harvey, go here.
____________________________________
Gary Moller comments:
Articles like these by supposed conditioning experts leave me with feelings of deep dismay for the future of sport - and weight loss!

Performance that is derived from a stimulatory substance - be it green tea extract or ephidrine, is a really dumb conditioning strategy. The same goes for using the same "thermogenic" substances for weight loss.

Encouraging the use of substances that artificially stimulate the senses and the metabolism to either increase physical performance or to burn fat go completely against the spirit of natural health and fair sport. Even if small amounts are considered safe to use, we all know that there are plenty of young and desperate people out there who will take many, many times more than that if they think it will give them an advantage. The abuse of "soft" drugs often leads on to harder substances. In sport, using stimulants may progress to the dangerous abuse of anabolic steriods. View my Power Point Presentation about Drug Cheats in Sport here.

Athletes who seek an artificial edge (cheating) by using chemicals might win spectacularly for a while; but they quickly disappear off the scenes. While clean athletes last longer career-wide they suffer financially and they miss out on their rightful share of the Gold medals and the Records.

I do not know of any chemical stimulants that do not quickly addict the user chemically and psychologically. When these substances are pumped into the body, the body responds by reducing its own production of the equivalent chemicals. This is the basis of addiction and once a person is in its grasp, wrestling free is much easier said than done. The downside of addiction to stimulants is inconsistent performances, poor decision-making, bad temper, bouts of fatigue and depression and the need to take more and more for the same effect. Oh - and I almost forgot: Weight gain! Please read my article about caffeine addiction here.

Conditioning experts who encourage such dubious practices do not impress me at all. They give my profession a bad name.

"Its allometry dear Watson" - S.Holmes

In all but a few sports, there is a very good reason why we should not, as coaches, have young people overly specialise before physical maturity: the reason is "allometry".

The science of allometric scaling dictates that if an organism doubles in size, power increases only by a factor of 2/3rds. This is why an ant can lift several times its weight, whereas an elephant cannot lift its own weight. The larger the organism, the less its power to weight ratio. This is why an ant would collapse under its own weight if it were scaled to elephant size and why an elephant can't jump. The same maths applies to accelerating and decelerating a body: The more mass, disproportionally more energy is required to accelerate and decelerate it.

So a 50kg weight lifter can lift more per kg body weight that a 150kg lifter. 100m sprinters tend to be smaller than 200m sprinters because the smaller mass is more quickly accelerated, bestowing a slight advantager over a larger opponent over the shorter distance. This is why a small rugby player tends to be able out-manoever a larger opponent. Size is an advantage in sports that do not require lifting and lowering body weight. Therefore; a big rower or kayaker will have an advantage over a smaller opponent. The same applies to cycling - a big rider will have an advantage on a flat course; whereas the lighter rider will have it over a big boy on the hills. When running, a small runner has the advantage over a larger one in any event longer than about 200m. This is because each stride raises and lowers the body weight by several centimeters. Power to weight ratio outweighs total power. This is principally why the slightly built North African runners dominate world running.

The maths are simple when working out power to weight ratios: Example: a 65 kg rider with a 4 liter O2 uptake = 61.5 ml O2/Kg 85 kg rider with a 5 liter O2 uptake = 58.8 ml O2/kg On the flat, the 85 kg rider will have an advantage over the 65 kg rider, whereas on a hilly course or one that requires constant accelerating and decelerating and changing of direction, the 65 kg rider will have the edge, other than on any long descents. We see these rules of physics being played out in races like the Tour de France the 60 kg riders dominate the mountain passes; whereas the bigger riders like Jan Ullrich tend to dominate the flat sections, including the time trials.

As a young person goes through puberty, body changes can be dramatic and one can not defy physical laws such as those to do with allomteric scaling. One can get an idea what that skinny little kid might grow into by looking at his/her parents and close relatives. This is why a young person that demonstrates talent should not over-specialise in one particluar discipline until well on the way to physical maturity - about 18-20 years. This gives them the option to switch to the event that their body best suits and to also find out what they really enjoy doing. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rules of physics, but these people are rare.

Pushing the limits - Too far

"The most important of the neurotransmitters from a sports performance perspective are Dopamine, Epinephrine and norepinephrine and acetylcholine. As Dr John Berardi explains “Some evidence exists showing that when neurotransmitters like acetylcholine, dopamine, and norepinephrine get depleted, physical and cognitive performance suffers. Since these neurotransmitters can be depleted from intense repeated bouts of strenuous exercise, this is bad news. " Read the whole article by clicking on the title link above.
___________________________________________
Gary Moller Comments:
This is an interesting article that is put out by the people of IRule. While I can see where they are coming from and while I do not have a problem with the science, I do worry that many multisports atheltes rely too much on various performance supplements, ranging from energy drinks, to caffeine to ephidrine-type chemicals. This especially so for ultra endurance events that sometimes go for days on end.

Why, oh why does the good doctor believe the depeletion of neurotransmitters is "bad news"? I think it is good news.

The need for sleep and the tiring of nerves so that muscles begin to fail is natural and there for a purpose: without periodic breaks for repair and replenishment, the body breaks down. The consequences of ignoring Nature, or trying to circumvent her can be catastrophic. Muscles and tendons like ropes eventually fray and break; joints like bearings will seize if not resurfaced and lubricated; and the brain becomes hopelessly muddled if not rebooted now and then. This is not rocket science. The body's parts all interact perfectly. To fiddle with one part of the body or its physiology in order to get an artificial performance gain risks acute and lasting damage.

What I am beginning to see nowadays is "mature" multisports athletes who are suffering early onset of arthritis and permanent muscle and tendon damage. Without question, this is the result of overdoing events that go on and on and on, well past the point where one would normally call it a day. I would like to see a shift back to events that last just 3-5 hours. Like old elephants whose time has come, the multisporters who have worn themselves to a standstill, quietly slip away unnoticed into the shadows. I would like to see some research of the musculoskeletal health of multisports veterans.

I competed in the very first multisports races back in 1977. They lasted 3-5 hours and the courses were determined by the rugged terrain in which they were typically held. Many of those who embraced this new sport did so partly because they were sick and tired of over-regulated sports like athletics and cycling and the cheating that was going on with performance enhancing drugs. It was a sport that was one with nature and almost without rules. Has it lost the plot?

Training for a Mountain Bike Race

Start 'em young: Alama Moller (centre) lining up for the NZ Championships

If you have not read this yet, here is the link to my latest E-Publication.