Since the publication of the first FitGreyStrong blog ‘Sitting yourself into your grave‘ just over 2 years ago (click on the link or see the picture below), there have been a significant number of milestones and achievements that I would like to share with all of my followers.
The last 2 years have been very busy and productive. There have been several scientific critiques and analyses published as well as many blogs. These have been specifically directed at those amongst us who identify as Gen X or Baby Boomers and have primarily focused on health, fitness and nutrition-related topics or issues. The following provides a summary of the FitGreyStrong journey:
Including the globally popular 10,000 word commentary on how diet affects energy expenditure and weight loss (see hereand here)
How resistance training can affect the course of ageing (see here)
The perennial favourite “12 Reasons Why All Older Adults Need To Hit The Gym” (see here)
Nearly 1000 followers on Twitter and close to 8000 tweets
Over 800 Facebook posts
Close to 400 Instagram posts and;
110 YouTube video’s
There have been some very popular FitGreyStrong blogs/posts/tweets/videos and I have listed a short assortment of these below.
Most popular blog
The most widely read blog with readers from over 20 countries investigates how strength training can alter the trajectory of ageing and reviews the seminal work of Maria Fiatarone and colleagues back in 1990 (see here).
Most popular Facebook posts
The top 3 most popular Facebook posts were:
The sitting-rising test (SRT) that showed that the ability to sit down and stand back up again in a cross-legged position could predict the likelihood or risk of dying in the next 6 years. There have been over 100,000 views, 17 shares, 92 likes/loves and many comments (see here).
Modifying the Thomas test for one of the best stretches for the quadriceps, iliacus & psoas major (iliopsoas). A great way to improve flexibility of these muscles and improve hip extension ROM. There were over 1,000 views, 5 shares, 26 likes/loves and comments (see here).
The study was undertaken to elucidate the range of training-induced neuromuscular adaptations in elderly humans recovering from a period of disuse. It examined the effect of three types of training regimes after unilateral (one-leg) prolonged disuse and subsequent hip-replacement surgery on maximal muscle strength, rapid muscle force rate of force development, muscle activation, and muscle size. The popularity of the post was generated by the muscle scans of the thigh showing just how powerful resistance training is at inducing change in muscle structure and function. There were approximately 5000 views, 6 shares and 22 likes. It was also widely shared on other Facebook pages (see here).
Most popular Tweets
The top 3 most popular Tweets were:
Age-related dynapenia is weakly related to sarcopenia and is why we must look beyond just muscle mass (see here).
Motor effort training and low exercise intensity increases muscle strength and descending command in aging (see here).
Counter to the energy surfeit model of obesity increasing energy expenditure may be better for decreasing percentage body fat than caloric restriction (see here).
Late last year the international journal, Clinical Nutrition, published a FitGreyStrong critique of: Thomson et al. (2016) Muscle strength gains during resistance exercise training are attenuated with soy compared with dairy or usual protein intake in older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Nutrition. 35: 27-33 thus demonstrating that Exercise Scientists practising outside of academia have relevant and valid things to say about clinical research being conducted around the world.
Clinical Nutrition publication
The highlight of 2017, however, was being given the opportunity to present “Why the ‘strengthification’ of Gen X’ers & Baby Boomers is the greatest health challenge of the 21st century“ at the Ancestral Health Society of New Zealand conference in Queenstown in October where I postulated that muscular strength lies at the foundation of health, quality of life and functionality. The slide deck of this presentation can be viewed (by request only), so please either send me an email or use the contact form on the home page.
Presenting at the Ancestral Health Society of New Zealand
The future holds some exciting and challenging projects ahead so watch this space. Currently, FitGreyStrong is working on a journal editorial with some other researchers from around the world which will investigate and report on the importance of resistance training in older adults and the augmentative effects and safety of nutritional/drug supplementation.
Finally, I would like to express a big thank you to all those that have embraced FitGreyStrong and I hope to continue to bring quality information to all those Gen X’ers and Baby Boomers interested in advancing their health, quality of life and functionality.
Please share with those family and friends that are interested in ageing, health, exercise and wellness. The social media icons below will link it straight to your preferred platform.
Disclaimer: All contents of the FitGreyStrong website/blog are provided for information and education purposes only. Those interested in making changes to their exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens should consult a relevantly qualified and competent health care professional. Those who decide to apply or implement any of the information, advice, and/or recommendations on this website do so knowingly and at their own risk. The owner and any contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm caused, real or imagined, from the use or distribution of information found at FitGreyStrong. Please leave this site immediately if you, the reader, find any of these conditions not acceptable.
There has been a significant amount of research conducted and published recently that seeks to better understand the precise resistance training parameters required to maximise muscle strength and morphology in healthy old adults. This has been driven largely by the growing acknowledgment and concern related to the process of sacropenia that occurs with ageing whereby muscle mass, strength and functional capacity decline. Both the practical and clinical implications of this are far reaching for each individual affected, but have far wider social, economic and political ramifications regarding future health care policy in relation to the ageing population. Of the many interventions explored, resistance training has been shown to rapidly improve various aspects of muscle morphology and function. In fact, results of studies looking at this form of exercise suggest that most, if not all adults over the course of their lifespan, should indulge in regular, challenging resistance training.
Resistance training facilitates rapid improvements in muscle strength and function
The rest between each set of repetitions performed during a resistance training session – known as the inter-set rest period – is something that has been recently explored. Attempts to discover the optimal inter-set rest period of time to maximise the effectiveness of a training program continues, but so far consensus has been difficult to establish. Results from studies (see below) conducted in healthy old untrained men compared to young resistance-trained men produced completely opposite conclusions with shorter 1-minute rests augmenting strength and hypertrophy better in the former group but longer 3-minute rests working better for the latter group. The question arises, how is this possible? At face value, these results suggest that resistive exercise adaptations may be training-status and/or age-specific.
I recently emailed the authors of these papers to canvass some of the possible methodological confounders that may have influenced the results by skewing them in favour of one group over another. Given that such research often informs future recommendations regarding best practice when designing resistance training programs, any possible confounders affecting the results need to be highlighted. Robust discussion is required in an effort to further strengthen and validate the conclusions of these studies so that bodies like National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) can make accurate and evidence-based recommendations.
The following analysis is a summary of the email I sent to the authors for comment. Unfortunately, I did not receive any feedback which was pretty disappointing. The 2 key papers are (with full citation at the end):
“Dose-response relationships of resistance training in healthy old adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis”
“Short rest interval lengths between sets optimally enhance body composition and performance with 8 weeks of strength resistance training in older men”
COMMENT: Whilst I am open to the possibility that shorter interset rest periods could potentially lead to greater muscular strength and hypertrophic adaptations in untrained healthy older men, I am also trying to reconcile results of another recently published paper by Schoenfeld and colleagues titled “Longer inter-set rest periods enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained men” that found the direct opposite. Perhaps this is not so surprising if most of the decline in skeletal muscle mass with ageing, as shown by Nilwik et al (2013) a few years ago, results almost exclusively from atrophy of type II muscle fibres. Taken together these divergent results would suggest that resistive exercise adaptations may be training-status and/or age specific.
Are shorter inter-set rest periods better?
I have not come across any discussion or research so far that has attempted to correlate the relationship of the effectiveness of shorter or longer interset rest periods with the observed selective atrophy of type II muscle fibres which has been shown to occur in untrained older men. It would be interesting to see if the disproportionate representation of slow twitch muscle fibres in untrained older men somehow decreases the effectiveness of longer interset rest periods.
My proposition, however, is this. The key finding – that a shorter interset rest period was found to be superior – could have been confounded by:
The testing protocol utilised and;
A small group of participants reducing the power to detect whether significant differences exist in true baseline training status and “responsiveness” to training during week 0 to week 4 of the matched groups.
I should point out that the statistical analysis as it stands doesn’t support my comments so please bear this in mind.
The variables and areas that I would like to focus on and discuss are:
The testing protocol utilised to assess 1-RM performance.
Age differences found and whether age was adjusted for all phases.
Baseline Margaria stair-climbing power.
The rate and percentage improvement differences found for Bilateral Leg Press 1RM (kg) week 0 to week 4 when all subjects were doing the same program during Mesocycle I.
The rate and percentage improvement differences from week 0 to week 4 for the walking test when all subjects were doing the same program during Mesocycle I.
Some statistical and data anomalies that I couldn’t make sense of.
For the remainder of the article I will use SS to refer to short inter-set rest periods and SL will refer to longer inter-set rest periods.
After reading through the testing protocol used to assess 1-RM performance it seems to me that this unfairly advantages the SS group. The strength training phase for the SS group from week 4 to 12 used 1-minute interset rest periods whilst the SL group used 4 minutes. With the testing protocol using 1-2 minute rests between 1-RM attempts the SS group would have been far better adapted both physically and mentally to perform maximally for this testing protocol because their training closely resembled testing procedures. Maybe some of the testing should have included 4-minute rests between 1-RM attempts to control for this. As it stands, the methodological approach taken for this study could have produced significantly greater 1-RM strength testing outcomes in the SS group.
Ironically, the study by Schoenfeld and co. (younger trained men) found that longer rests (3-minutes) were superior to shorter (1-minute) for strength and hypertrophy gains. But once again the results may have been skewed because the testing protocol more closely matched the longer rest period group where they used 3-5 minute rest periods during testing.
During Mesocycle II an 8 week strength training phase was completed where only the interset rest period differed. This phase was adjusted for values at week -4 and 0, as well as age. During Mesocycle I, a 4 week high-volume, moderate-intensity hypertrophic training phase was followed by all participants. After adjusting for values at week -4 results showed all subjects significantly improved in training and testing parameters. However, I’m wondering if age was adjusted for during Mesocycle I as there is no reference that this was done in the results described for this phase on p.301.
At baseline most variables in Table 1 page 297 show that there were no significant differences between the SS and SL groups. The variable that caught my eye that I found interesting was Margaria stair-climbing power (W) with a trend toward a significant difference (p=0.07) in favour of SS. Whilst not reaching p<0.05 level, the 26.6% greater power achieved for the week 0 Margaria test in the SS vs. SL group is fairly large by any measure. This test would be the best indicator of lower body power and would also be the most challenging in terms of motor pattern complexity thus making it perhaps the most sensitive in determining baseline group differences in training status compared to the other variables measured. By extension, if we assume that there was perhaps some sort of training status difference at baseline between SS vs SL, the overall improvements from training would be skewed in favour of the SS group.
What’s the best way to increase muscle mass with ageing?
During Mesocycle I all subjects performed the same training program. Results showed that following this phase of training, the 2 treatment groups were comparable for most variables apart from the narrow/neutral lat pulldown and some of the SEBT tests. The significant difference found for the pulldown is surprising with an increase in the SS group from 336.2 kg to 380.2 kg (+13.1% increase over baseline) vs SL from 299.4 kg to 339.9 kg (+13.5% increase over baseline).
In relation to the Bilateral leg press 1-RM (kg) baseline values for SS vs SL were 224.0 kg and 215.3 kg, respectively, increasing to 327.9 kg and 278.7 kg at week 4. The average absolute increase in kilograms lifted for 1-RM were thus 103.9 kg for SS and 63.4 kg for SL. So a baseline difference of 8.7 kg increased to 40.5 kg by week 4. Figure 1b for the Leg Press is quite telling too for the week 0 to week 4 period. The improvement of the SS group compared to the SL group during Mesocycle I is visually very noticeable with the gradient of improvement of the SS group much steeper than the SL group.
In relation to the 400-meter walking test baseline values for SS vs SL were 182.8 and 187.2 seconds, respectively, decreasing to 164.6 and 176.3 seconds after 4 weeks training. Absolute decreases in time taken to perform the walking test were therefore 18.2 seconds for SS and 10.9 seconds for SL. This comparison I think is illustrated even better if both groups are compared for the distance differential after completion of this test. At baseline, the SS group would have finished 9.4 metres in front of the SL group. After 4 weeks of Mesocycle I training the SS group would have finished 26.5 metres in front of the SL group.
These testing results seen over Mesocycle I are pretty decent and if observed in a field situation would constitute a difference in training responsiveness.
For the Margaria stair-climbing power test the week 12 data as presented in Figure 3b has to be either a mistake or a misprint. In table 2 the SD for this test at week 12 was 1117.3 W compared to what appears to be almost 2300 W in figure 3.
SUMMARY: The single biggest issue with the finding that shorter 1-minute rests augment strength better in older untrained men, is that the testing protocol utilised a short rest period between maximal efforts thereby favouring the group that trained in this fashion.
Possible baseline differences in lower body power and differences in training “responsiveness” during the first Mesocycle phase are other potential issues that I would have liked investigated or explored further.
References
Borde, R., Hortobágyi, T. and Granacher, U. (2015) “Dose-response relationships of resistance training in healthy old adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis” Sports Med. 45: 1693-1720
Nilwik, R. et al. (2013) “The decline in skeletal muscle mass with aging is mainly attributed to a reduction of type II muscle fiber size” Experimental Gerontology. 48: 492-498.
Schoenfeld, B.J. et al. (2015) “Longer inter-set rest periods enhance muscle strength and hypertrophy in resistance-trained men” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. November http://www.researchgate.net/publication/284711582
Villanueva, M.G., Lane, C.J. and Schroeder, E.T. (2015) “Short rest interval lengths between sets optimally enhance body composition and performance with 8 weeks of strength resistance training in older men” Eur J Appl Physiol. 115: 295-308.
FitGreyStrong fact: Weight gain occurs when total caloric daily consumption exceeds total daily energy expenditure. To achieve weight or fat loss there must be an energy or caloric deficit. Over 80 years of scientific research has confirmed this to be fact.
FitGreyStrong Advice: Don’t believe the hype. Food quality is a must and essential to good health. However, weight or fat loss will not be realised no matter how good your diet is unless an energy deficit exists. Increased total physical activity during all waking hours and an energy-deficit diet that is wholesome, natural, minimally-processed and nutrient-dense will provide a significant opportunity for weight loss to be achieved.
I’m going to make a confession. I have laboured over the last month to write this blog. I’ve spent hour upon hour trying my best to explain what I think is a simple concept. The strangest thing is the evidence published so far is conclusive but with so much shit floating around anyone looking to lose a few kilo’s in the New Year is faced with a major challenge. What info is good and what is bad? How does one decipher what advice to act on and what advice to send to the computer’s recycle bin?
As I explained recently the media and ‘rogue’ researchers have, in some ways, muddied the weight loss debate by promoting the idea that exercise doesn’t help (see here). There are many examples of the media misleading consumers by sensationalising material that has been poorly researched, lacks objectivity and obfuscates the facts.
Ironically, it is this type of questionable and controversial material that gains the most traction with the public. The confusion created by such reporting has had a truly dreadful impact on the public’s perception regarding the role of exercise for weight loss. Many health care professionals working in the field have also raised serious concerns about this too because there is the feeling that some people may simply avoid physical activity altogether.
Notwithstanding that compensatory mechanisms mitigate the efficacy of exercise in some people (see here), widespread consensus remains elusive regarding the very basic underpinnings of weight loss. It seems incredible in fact that in the year 2016 vigorous debate and disagreement continues to swirl. However, I believe that the writing was on the wall when Generation X’s were still kids. There was sufficient scientific research carried out from the 1930s to the 1980s to put to bed and move on from some of the most hotly contested questions relevant to weight loss. The two questions which continue to inspire fierce debate are:
1. Do calories really matter?
2. Is weight loss simply a matter of expending more energy than you consume?
Before outlining what the specific focus of this blog is I need to digress. I want to make clear that it is not my intention here to assess whether manipulating the macronutrient makeup of the diet – e.g. high fat versus high carb diets – yields superior benefits on metabolic outcomes such as fasting blood glucose or lipid profile. Of course, this is a very important question to address but I’ll have bitten off way more than I can chew to do this justice, so I’ll come back to this another time.
The only thing I will say is that the actual published research is mixed. Three meta-analyses and systematic reviews have been completed over the last 18 months assessing whether metabolic outcomes are affected by manipulating macronutrient composition. Two of the these (see hereand here) concluded that there were no differences on metabolic outcomes when the protein, carbohydrate and fat composition of the diet was varied; whilst the other paper (see here) suggested the opposite stating that dietary manipulation did alter metabolic outcomes.
Ok, let’s get back to what the focus of this blog is then.
Is obesity a disease?
The aim of the following is to shine a spotlight on and explore the mechanistic aspect of weight loss. You may be wondering…………. what the bloody hell does that mean? What I mean by ‘mechanistic’ is the basic physiological state required – in our species, Homo sapiens – to bring about weight loss.
To state this as simply as possible, when it comes to weight loss the single most important factor from a physiological perspective is that there exists an energy or caloric deficit. Eighty-five years of scientific research and investigation has demonstrated without equivocation that for weight loss to occur an energy deficit must exist. Total daily energy expenditure has to exceed total daily energy intake for any reduction in body mass to occur or vice versa for any increase to occur. Regardless of one’s age, race or gender this holds true. This really is the only conclusion you can draw if you actually read the studies that have been published in reputable peer-reviewed medical journals relevant to this area (see here).
Now some of you may disagree with me on this and you are not alone. Unfortunately, in my view, there are a number of dissenting voices from a variety of quarters that simply don’t believe this to be true. They passionately dispute this and contend that the total energy provided by the diet matters very little. What really counts is the metabolic effect food has on our body. An example of this type of thinking can be found here.
Supporters of such thinking, decouple weight loss and calories. They propose that the “metabolic propensity” to increase and store fat in the adipose cells is driven primarily by the quality of the foodstuffs ingested and the proportion of protein, carbohydrates and fat in the diet. “A calorie is not a calorie” because different foods of different qualities have different effects on our digestion, hormones, biochemistry, metabolism, thermogenesis, physiology and associated internal feedback loops.
Whilst the total energy or calorie content of food matters, what is significantly more important is the metabolic effect that food has on our body. All calories are not created equal, therefore, with the quality and type of food choices made and the subsequent metabolic effect that such choices have on our body ultimately determining if fat loss is successful or not.
The most significant and telling problem with this line of thinking is that there are virtually no respected and acknowledged researchers who believe it. I see this as a telltale sign that the dissenters are simply barking up the wrong tree. Virtually all leading obesity experts worldwide concur that unless there is an energy deficit, decreases to weight or fat mass are not possible irrespective of how good the diet is. The question needs to be asked, why is this the case?
FitGreyStrong’s take-home message to you up to this point is:
Unless you expend more than you take-in you ain’t going to see any changes to your weight or fat.
Resistance and weight training shows great promise to maximise fat loss
There exists consensus amongst nearly all scientists because of the following. Research undertaken with participants confined to an in-patient hospital setting or in facilities known as metabolic units are currently the most accurate way to scientifically determine the specific energy requirements needed for weight change. Such studies are usually expensive because they are very resource and equipment intensive. However, what they allow researchers to do is measure what is being consumed (energy in) and what is being expended (energy out) quite precisely – or at least, a lot more precisely than studies that involve free-living subjects.
In brief, the methodology of such studies looks something like this:
For the duration of the trial subjects have to remain in the hospital or unit.
Participants of these studies are allocated and given all consumables (food and drink) for the duration of the intervention.
The caloric content of what is consumed is a known entity and has been prepared and accurately measured.
The macronutrient percentages of the diet for protein, carbs and fat has been determined.
Physical activity is closely monitored, measured and accounted for.
Resting energy expenditure (REE) and total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) is estimated as accurately as possible based on the equipment utilised and methods employed in the study.
With energy intake and energy expenditure measured as close to actual as possible, investigators can now establish whether the prerequisite for weight loss is an energy deficit. Over the last 80 years or so there have been over 20 studies carried out that have assessed the effect of calorie and macronutrient manipulation on weight loss whilst in the strict confines of hospital or metabolic unit.
Evaluation of such research has shown that no major differences have been found for weight or fat loss when diets of different macronutrient composition but with the same amount of energy (i.e. isoenergetic diets) were compared. Results from these studies show beyond dispute that the key determinant for decreased weight is a caloric or energy deficit, not diet composition.
To look at the evidence another way, not one of these trials – not even one – has ever demonstrated an increase in body weight when daily energy intake is less than daily energy expenditure. Likewise, no such study has ever shown a decrease in body weight when daily energy intake exceeds daily energy expenditure. This remains so irrespective of the macronutrient breakdown.
To give you a taste of the studies that have incorporated some of the methods referred to above, let’s take a quick look at a few of these:
Study 1 – Graves and colleagues conducted a randomized trial comparing an energy-restricted high-protein versus high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet in the morbidly obese which was published in the Obesity Journal (see here). Eighty-eight obese participants (mean age, 46.7; mean BMI, 45.6 kg m squared) were enrolled in a 3-week inpatient and 48-week outpatient treatment. The study was novel in that it included cognitive behaviour therapy in the treatment. All subjects consumed a restricted diet (1,200 kcal/day for women, 1,500 kcal/day for men; 20% energy from fat, <10% saturated fat). The high-protein diet derived 34% energy from proteins, 46% from carbohydrates; the high carb diet derived 17% from proteins, 64% from carbohydrates. The primary outcome was 1-year percent weight loss and secondary outcomes were attrition rates, changes in cardiovascular risk factors and psychological profile. The three week in-patient period closely monitored and provided all food with the total energy content and macronutrient composition known.
No difference in BMI or weight reduction was detected for this period between each diet.
The authors concluded (pg.1774) that:
“the relative carbohydrate and protein content of the diet, when combined with intensive CBT, does not significantly affect attrition rate, weight loss and psychosocial outcome in patients with severe obesity”.
Study 2 – Golay and co-workers compared diets equally low in energy (1000 kcal) but widely different in relative amounts of fat and carbs on body weight reduction in 43 obese adults during a 6-week period of hospitalisation (see here). The diets were composed of 32% protein, 15% carb and 53% fat versus 29% protein, 45% carb and 26% fat. The first diet could be described quite well as a low-carb, high-fat diet and the second diet as a more balanced diet. After 6 weeks no significant differences were seen for weight loss, fat loss or waist-to-hip circumference. Energy intake, not nutrient composition, determined weight loss in response to low-energy diets.
Study 3 – Leibel and co-workers established in 1992 that even during very wide variations in the fat-to-carbohydrate ratio (fat energy varied from 0% to 70% of total intake) there was no significant variation in energy need and changes in body weight (see here). Sixteen human subjects were confined to a metabolic ward for an average of 33 days and fed precisely known liquid diets with protein derived from milk and fat varied from different amounts of corn oil. Total energy intake, not diet composition was once again the key determinant in modulating energy balance.
I could continue and summarise the other studies published but the overall findings are much the same as that described above. For a more extensive review of these type of studies please see here.
Confusion around this topic, I think, has been created by other research and weight loss trials that don’t take place in the confines of a hospital or metabolic unit, but rather use free-living subjects. These studies cannot accurately quantify energy intake and expenditure and they are hence plagued by problems.
Firstly, participants often have to record or attempt to recall what they ate and drank. It probably doesn’t surprise you then that this has been shown to be notoriously inaccurate. Even those studies that provide free-living subjects with their allotment of food and drink can’t completely prevent or control for individuals eating or not eating the food on their assigned ‘menu’. Secondly, energy expenditure is estimated via physical activity logs, diaries, pedometers or fancy equipment like activPAL (see here). Consequently, energy expenditure can often be under- or over-estimated so such data can be terrible misleading. To state the obvious, deriving definitive results and conclusions from these types of studies is going to be challenging.
In spite of the caveats mentioned above, the results from the many studies using free-living subjects concurs with the hospitalisation and metabolic unit studies. Two meta-analyses and systematic reviews published in 2014 and 2015 concluded the same thing:
“Both types of macronutrient-centered weight loss diets produced weight loss. Manipulation of macronutrient composition of weight loss diets does not appear to be associated with significantly different weight loss or metabolic outcomes.”
The massive 2014 review by Naude and colleagues (see here) assessed 228 studies making it one of the largest meta-analyses and systematic reviews available. Provided one reads and reviews such research with an objective and impartial mind it is implausible to reach any other conclusion.
A final comment: The one thing that I believe provides the biggest hint that total calories are indeed fundamental to weight loss is something that is noticeable in the methodology of the more scientifically robust studies. Of the research that has taken place in a hospital or metabolic unit setting there is one key characteristic that most of these studies determine before proceeding to the weight loss phase of the trial. Can you guess what it is? Researchers establish energy requirements (i.e. total daily caloric intake) for weight maintenance over a period of 1 to 2 weeks (see here). If for arguments sake, calories were not important for inducing weight loss, then establishing energy requirements for weight maintenance in these studies would be a pointless exercise.
Before I finish up I need to make some clarifying comments.
1. Those that make the claim that calories are not important in relation to the obesity problem or when trying to decrease body fat are doing, I think, either one of two things. They are ignoring the data produced from hospital/metabolic unit-based studies and/or they are misinterpreting and taking at face value the results of research conducted with free-living subjects.
2. There will be those that read this and conclude that what I am advocating or all that I think matters is calories, with diet quality just a cursory concern. I can hear some of you saying right now “….but surely 2500 calories of jelly beans or junk food is different to 2500 calories of atlantic salmon, walnuts, broccoli and berries.” Really? Well, yes, of course it is, thanks for pointing that out. A diet consisting of wholesome, natural, minimally processed and nutrient-dense foods is paramount to ensuring good health. I should state now that I am not suggesting for one moment that the quality of the diet is not important.
Food quality is key for health and weight management
3. Irrespective of how good a diet is in optimising the metabolic effect on your body, the fact remains nonetheless that it is still possible to gain weight eating a wholesome, natural, minimally processed and nutrient-dense diet. It is probably more difficult to do so, but regardless, you cannot escape the fact that you have to be in a consistent calorie deficit to lose fat or a chronic caloric surplus to gain fat.
For local Townsville residents interested in FitGreyStrong’s Exercise Physiology services or exercise programs designed to lose weight, improve muscular strength, physical function (how you move around during the day) and quality of life or programs to enhance athletic performance, contact FitGreyStrong@outlook.com or phone 0499 846 955 for a confidential discussion.
For other Australian residents or oversees readers interested in our services, please see here.
Disclaimer: All contents of the FitGreyStrong website/blog are provided for information and education purposes only. Those interested in making changes to their exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens should consult a relevantly qualified and competent health care professional. Those who decide to apply or implement any of the information, advice, and/or recommendations on this website do so knowingly and at their own risk. The owner and any contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm caused, real or imagined, from the use or distribution of information found at FitGreyStrong. Please leave this site immediately if you, the reader, find any of these conditions not acceptable.
The following blog is going to be very different to what I have published previously. It will be largely philosophical and sociological based so if this is not your thing I would suggest you click on the back button or close this article and look for something else. If you are, however, interested in looking at things a little differently then you may find that this challenges what you think you thought you knew about the issue at hand.
Those that are familiar with my blog will also recognise that the subject matter seems to have no relevance to the main objective of FitGreyStrong. Just to be clear the aim of FitGreyStrong is to provide biopsychosocial insights derived from research and science to assist older people’s choices and inform their behaviours in relation to matters pertaining to health, fitness and nutrition. That being said, recent events in the world of sport that have once again brought the use of performance-enhancing drugs to the centre of the public’s attention have inspired me to write about and re-visit research I conducted many years ago that directly attempted to understand the nature and context of the doping problem. The current scandal surrounding the allegations of state-sponsored doping by Russia and the corruption associated to allow this to take place has once again rocked the world. On November 9, an independent commission set up by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) confirmed widespread use of performance enhancing drugs and blood doping by Russian track and field athletes, which were encouraged and covered-up by coaches, doctors, and state and sports officials. Many will see this piece as completely off-the-mark, maybe even heretical or just purely academic in nature. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to discuss the ‘darkside’ of the doping problem because if there is one thing that you may agree with me on it is that you virtually never read anything that questions the current status quo.
Many years ago I wrote a Master’s thesis titled: An elite track athletic squad’s perceptions and attitudes to the use of performance-enhancing substances. At the start of this task I presumed that my position and attitude to performance-enhancing substances or “doping” would be consolidated. I was sadly mistaken. Initially – and rightly so – I held the view that elite sport was and should be “natural” and “clean” with elite sporting contests resembling a battle between those that had worked the hardest and smartest. I also believed that following my research I would have a much clearer understanding of this contentious issue. I was hoping that this would potentially provide some further lines of inquiry for research in the quest to find some practical solutions to the doping problem that existed and still exists in elite sport today. Unfortunately what happened was my research generated more questions than answers and left me wondering if we truly understand what it is that we find so distasteful and offensive about doping in sport.
100m men’s sprint race
The ethos and values of sport that we hold dear to our hearts are in many ways oxymoronic to the objectives of modern day elite sport. It was over 100 years ago that Pierre de Coubertin, a French educator, historian and acknowledged as the Father of the modern Olympic Games said:
The important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win, but to take part; the important thing in Life is not triumph, but the struggle; the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well. To spread these principles is to build up a strong and more valiant and, above all, more scrupulous and more generous humanity. (The Olympian (1984) by Peter L. Dixon, Roundtable Pub p 210.)
Sport at the turn of the 20th century espoused and romanticised the virtues of health, fairness, equality, ‘sportsmanship’, amateurism, humility and was viewed as essential in solidifying moral and social strength. In fact Coubertin went as far as suggesting that sport could promote peace between different nations and cultures. I’m sure Coubertin would be turning in his grave given what modern elite sport has become. So what we now have is a situation that what we believe elite sport should be, and what it actually is, are in fact dichotomous paradigms completely conflicting with each other. You just can’t have it both ways because they are essentially polar opposite in nature. Perhaps part of the problem to this lies in the fact that the desire to hold on to the past is strong – and for valid reasons – because sport was a virtuous pursuit symbolic of all that was good. However, modern day elite sport has clearly morphed into something very different where, I would contend, ‘its’ moral compass is simply pointing in the wrong direction.
I realise that some who read this blog will strongly disagree with my arguments. It is not my goal to advocate the lifting of the ban on doping in sport, but rather to explore the rationale behind why we actually support such bans in the first place. Understanding the reasons why we currently prohibit certain performance-enhancing practices is clearly fundamental to the way sport will be conceptualised and practiced in the future so we need to have a damn good idea and be quite clear on why we are doing what we are doing. To give you an example of just how misunderstood the issue of doping in sport is, if you were to ask 10 people on the street why doping is banned, 8 of them would reply by saying:
“because it’s cheating”.
However, cheating is defined by the rules that govern the conduct of the participants. In other words, an athlete or team can only cheat if their actions purposefully contravene some rule that defines what is appropriate conduct whereby such conduct gives that person or player an unfair advantage over his/her opponent(s). As doping is currently banned then of course when athletes dope they are cheating. But if the ban on the use of doping was to suddenly change – which allowed athletes to utilise drugs to enhance performance – we can no longer say they are cheating because what they are doing is now permissible.
Drugs in sport is big business for the black market
The rules of sport basically then define what constitutes cheating but in terms of the rationale used as justification to ban doping as a means of enhancing human athletic performance, there are three fundamental arguments currently advanced to support this position. Each of these arguments when examined more closely though are not reconcilable as there exists many anomalies and contradictions.
The three arguments are:
1. Health concerns – “It is bad for athletes’ health so we should protect their wellbeing“
This seems ethically justifiable and sensible on the surface and is a key reason why the International Olympic Committee, for example, currently prohibit certain performance-enhancing substances and practices. However, if we were really concerned about the health and wellbeing of our elite athletes then sports that have an inherent risk of severe injury or death would be outlawed. Why do we, then, accept the dangers associated with boxing, horse-racing, car racing, cycling, rugby, etc where participation might and can have catastrophic consequences? When we compare the potential dangers associated with the use of performance-enhancing drugs to dying this line of argument seems quite silly. So using health as a reason to ban doping does not stack up. Even if we accept health as a reasonable basis to ban doping, this is at complete odds to our acceptance of people’s rights, for example, to choose to smoke or drink which are behaviours that are known to have very detrimental effects on health and can indeed shorten lifespan. In free democratic societies we place significant value on individual autonomy and freedom but abhor paternalistic government intervention or control into our lives if that is seen as encroaching on our rights as individuals. The question then is, why do we allow individuals to make informed choices to smoke or drink but take this choice away from informed athletes?
2. Fairness or equality concerns – “Sport should provide a level playing field for all athletes“
Maybe the fairness argument is robust enough to justify the ban on doping? Unfortunately, it is perhaps the weakest of the 3 outlined. The Australian Senate Committee Inquiry into Drugs in Sport in 1988 – inspired largely by the Ben Johnson scandal at the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games and perhaps the forgotten events of the Alex Watson affair – repudiated the fairness argument. They and many others have asserted that globalised elite sport is fundamentally unfair at its very core. Is it fair for example that someone is genetically more gifted than their competitor even if that advantage has been ‘naturally’ bestowed? Just because something happens naturally does not necessarily make it fair. Is it fair that an athlete born in a poor country has to compete against an athlete that is born in a rich country where they will have access to good coaching, sports scientists, sports medicine, athletic programs, nutrition, equipment, technology, facilities etc etc? This epitomises what could be referred to as an unfair advantage. Really at the end of the day nothing in elite sport is fair.
Elite athletes or Frankensteinian aberrations?
3. The third argument used to ban doping is somewhat esoteric and therefore more complicated to grasp. This argument postulates that the practice of doping is viewed as positively deviant behaviour that compromises the athlete by dehumanising them as a person.
The transformation from a ‘clean’ to ‘doped’ athlete resembles something “Frankensteinian”. By this I mean the doped athlete undergoes a type of metamorphosis that is viewed – not biologically but socioculturally – as something not quite human. The ‘doped’ athlete has therefore transcended accepted notions of what it is to be human and as such, is rejected as an acceptable human form. The disgust that is expressed toward the doped athlete also appears to vary from country to country so this suggests that the specific context with which this takes place plays a key part in how doping is viewed as a practice and to what extent the doped athlete is perceived as being dehumanised. I think this argument holds promise but it is not issue-free. The problem is that what conceptually defines our ‘humanness’ or of being ‘human’ is dynamic and constantly changing. Such concepts are a product of a complex mix of the particular sociocultural, historical and political forces at work so what could be construed, then, as dehumanising at this point in time, could change as things often do; so this line of argument presents a challenge in terms of its robustness to stand the test of time.
Finally, there are the special medical considerations of elite athletes that, some have argued, could be improved by the judicious, closely monitored and medically supervised control of performance-enhancing drugs. There are sports scientists and doctors which have suggested that the demands of elite sport and the training required has now exceeded the human physiological ability to cope adequately. Ironically, if this is the case then those very same doping practices that are prohibited may assist athletes recuperate, recover and restore bodily equilibrium and in fact improve their health.
References
Brown, W.M. (1980) “Ethics, Drugs and Sport.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, VII, pp. 15-23
Brown, W.M. (1984) “Paternalism, Drugs and the Nature of Sports.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, XI, pp. 14-22
Hoberman, J.M. Mortal Engines: The science of performance and the dehumanization of sport, The free press, New York, 1992
Disclaimer: All contents of the FitGreyStrong website/blog are provided for information and education purposes only. Those interested in making changes to their exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens should consult a relevantly qualified and competent health care professional. Those who decide to apply or implement any of the information, advice, and/or recommendations on this website do so knowingly and at their own risk. The owner and any contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm caused, real or imagined, from the use or distribution of information found at FitGreyStrong. Please leave this site immediately if you, the reader, find any of these conditions not acceptable.
.jpg "doping in sport")