Tag Archives: sedentary

Is Resistance Training Better Than Aerobic Exercise For Improving Body Composition?

June 6, 2019 seanwilso 1 Comment

Share this:

It is often assumed that the best type of exercise – for treating obesity and therefore reducing current widespread levels of societal adiposity – is to preferentially increase aerobic or cardiorespiratory physical activity rather than resistance exercise or training. This assumption is based on the premise that aerobic-based exercise substantially increases total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) compared to the energy cost of resistance training. The argument goes that for the same amount of time invested (aerobic vs resistance exercise), significantly greater energy expenditure will occur in the former.

In fact, a good solid hour of ‘cardio’ can yield a net caloric expenditure of over 500 kcal. This of course varies depending on things like body mass, fitness level, the type of cardio exercise performed, exercise intensity and exercise efficiency. Nonetheless, it makes sense that an increase in TDEE would make it essentially easier to create an energy deficit which would thereby translate into improved body composition and decreased fat mass.

is strength training better than cardio for weight loss — Is Aerobic Exercise The Best For Fat Loss?

However, there are several caveats that must be mentioned which could affect just how successful weight loss and weight loss maintenance is if doing aerobic-only exercise. They include:

Overestimating the energy expenditure of an activity therefore stifling weight loss with erroneous values assigned to a cardio session.
Compensatory adaptation whereby weight loss is curtailed in some individuals with changes to Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR), non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT), fasting appetite, satiety and increased fat consumption (see here for further information). Professor Neil King, currently based at Brisbane’s QUT Faculty of Health in Australia, has been instrumental in bringing these issues to light (see here).
Recent evidence (see here) also suggests that TDEE may be constrained as aerobic activity levels increase. In other words, it has been shown that a plateauing effect on total energy expenditure occurs in those performing high amounts of aerobic-based physical activity. This lends support to the notion that metabolic adaptation constrains energy expenditure with increased physical activity. Theoretically, it is proposed that this would have probably helped facilitate survival during our evolution.
Research demonstrates that nutritional manipulation combined with aerobic exercise so that an energy deficit exists (a prerequisite for fat loss), causes a loss of lean body mass (LBM) with such loss causing decreases to RMR (see Villareal et al). It is very common to see exercisers lose significant amounts of LBM when only aerobic exercise is undertaken while in an energy deficit state.
The loss of LBM is not desirable for 2 key reasons. Firstly, functional physical capacity could be affected in both the short and long term (see Villreal et al). Secondly, resting metabolic rate will be reduced thereby making weight loss more difficult and weight regain more likely (see here for further discussion). Such alterations would make continued fat loss increasingly more difficult as energy intake would have to adjust to allow for the decrease in TDEE that would occur concomitantly with decreased LBM.
Some research has shown that appetite is suppressed more so with resistance versus aerobic exercise. Appetite attenuation would help facilitate the likelihood of achieving sustainable weight loss.

Recently Clemens Drenowatz from the Department of Exercise Science, University of South Carolina, headed up a study to examine the effect of different exercise types on measures of adiposity across different fat categories i.e. healthy, overfat and obese.

The term overfat was probably used instead of overweight so that a distinction could be made between high adiposity, low LBM versus low adiposity, high LBM. By that I mean, measuring body weight alone does not discern the proportionate breakdown of fat mass and lean body mass. As an example, you could have 2 men, same height, same weight, but with totally different body compositions in terms of percentage body fat. Increased chances of premature death and health morbidism are correlated not to LBM but to increasingly high levels of adipose tissue, in particular, visceral adiposity (internal fat rather than subcutaneous fat).

The key difference noted for this study was that the researchers did not prescribe an exercise program but rather allowed those involved in the study to self-select what activities to partake in and then assessed what effect those choices had on subsequent measures of body composition.

Three-hundred and forty-eight young adults (n=348) provided valid data over a 12 month period. Body composition, fat mass (FM) and lean mass (LM) were measured via a procedure known as dual x-ray absorptiometry every 3 months. Following this, percent body fat was calculated and then used to distinguish normal-fat, overfat and obese. Specifically, percent body fat ranges were less than 20% and 33% for normal fat, 20%-25% and 33%-39% for overfat, and equal to greater than 33% and 39% for obese in men and women, respectively.

Every 3 months participants reported engagement in aerobic exercise, resistance exercise and other forms of exercise such as tennis or football. Time per week spent engaged in endurance exercise, resistance exercise and other exercise was calculated. TDEE, RMR, physical activity level, and energy intake were also ascertained.

The majority of participants (93%) reported some exercise in the observation period. Surprisingly, differences existed as to what type of exercise showed the greatest benefit – for those either classified as normal-fat, overfat and obese – on reducing fat mass, increasing lean body mass and improving overall body composition.

For normal-fat participants, any type of exercise positively affected lean body mass; however fat mass was unaffected by any type of exercise. BMI and percentage body fat in normal-fat participants held steady. It was not an explicit aim of the study to bring about weight or fat reduction so this demonstrates that in those that are relatively lean, homeostasis for fat mass is robust.

Contrastingly, in overfat and obese participants, fat mass was reduced with increasing resistance exercise but not with aerobic exercise. Even adjusting for objectively assessed physical activity did not alter these results thereby suggesting that the real-world effectiveness of resistance exercise is particularly more potent than aerobic exercise to induce a decrease of fat mass in obesity.

The findings of this study have some important implications for exercise program design aimed at achieving body fat loss and reducing adiposity. With reliance on aerobic exercise continuing to dominant most weight/loss programs, we now have a growing body of evidence that is questioning this approach despite the fact that there is a greater ‘per-minute’ energy expenditure associated with aerobic compared to resistive exercise.

As mentioned above there are several factors that may constrain just how effective aerobic exercise is for altering body composition. Resistive but not aerobic exercise has also recently been shown to increase non-exercise physical activity (Hunter et al. 2015). Furthermore, resistive exercise was shown recently in a 12-year cohort study to have the strongest association with less waist circumference increase compared to aerobic exercise (Mekary et al. 2015). Taken together, these novel findings suggest that resistive exercise should always be included with aerobic exercise in those considered overfat or obese if the primary objective is to reduce fat mass.

FitGreyStrong’s recommendation: To optimise the effectiveness of exercise interventions in bringing about positive body compositional changes in those carrying excessive body fat, resistive exercise should be a pivotal component of any exercise program undertaken. Aerobic exercise remains a critically important component of any intervention for improving health and should still be incorporated on a daily basis if possible or for a minimum total period of 150 minutes/week at a moderate intensity. However, it is important to be mindful that a ‘Goldilocks’ or sweet spot may exist for some people whereby over-doing aerobic exercise may be counterproductive in terms of maximising fat loss due to factors that have been outlined above.

Basic weekly recommendations for a older beginners-to-intermediate resistance exercise intervention designed to reduce obesity would look something like this:

Two sessions per week
30-40 minutes in duration not including warm-up
Focus on working all major muscle groups primarily based on compound, multi-jointed non-machine orientated movements.
1-2 work sets
6-30 repetitions. The load is not important, the effort is. All loads in older adults have shown to be effective and produce comparable changes in muscle strength and hypertrophy, muscle endurance, bone density and physical function.
Controlled tempo (3-4 seconds on the eccentric, 0-2 seconds on transition, 1-2 seconds concentric, 1 seconds pause then repeat; if you are not sure what this mean please contact me)
60-180 seconds rest between sets. If stronger or more experienced, try longer rests on high effort sets.
At least 48 hours between sessions for recovery
Consume 40 g whey protein post-exercise to maximise muscle protein synthesis rates (see here for an outline on the research supporting post-exercise protein).

References

Blundell J. et al. (2010) “Appetite control: methodological aspects of the evaluation of foods.” Obe Rev 11(3): 251-270

Broom, D.R. (2008) “Influence of resistance and aerobic exercise on hunger, circulating levels of acylated ghrelin, and peptide YY in healthy males” American Journal of Physiology. 296(1): R29-R35.

Drenowatz, C. et al. (2015) “The prospective association between different types of exercise and body composition” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 47(12): 2535-2541.

Hunter, GR. Et al. (2015) “Exercise training and energy expenditure following weight loss” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 47(9): 1950-1957

King, N.A. et al (2012) “Exercise, appetite and weight management: understanding the compensatory responses in eating behaviour and how they contribute to variability in exercise-induced weight loss.”British Journal of Sports Medicine 46(5):315-22.

King N.A. et al. (2008) “Individual variability following 12 weeks of supervised exercise: identification and characterization of compensation for exercise-induced weight loss.” International Journal of Obesity. 32: 177-184

King N.A. et al. (2009) “Dual-process action of exercise on appetite control: increase in orexigenic drive but improvement in meal-induced satiety.” Am J Clin Nutr. 90: 921-927

Mekary RA et al. (2015) “Weight training, aerobic physical activities, and long-term waist circumference change in men” Obesity 23(2): 461-476

Melanson, E.L. et al. (2013) “Resistance to exercise-induced weight loss: compensatory behavioural adaptations” Med Sci Sports Exerc.August; 45(8): 1600-1609.

Peterson N.D. et al. (2014) “Dietary Self-Monitoring and Long-Term Success with Weight Management”. Obesity 22, 1962–1967

Villareal D.T. et al. (2011) “Weight Loss, Exercise, or Both and Physical Function in Obese Older Adults.” N Engl J Med 364(13): 1218-1229

For local Townsville residents interested in FitGreyStrong’s Exercise Physiology services or exercise programs designed to improve body composition, reduce body fat, increase fitness and strength or 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.

© FitGreyStrong

Share this:

Weight/Fat loss, Nutrition, News/Media, Psychology

Weight Loss Advice: Be Very Careful Who You Trust

February 7, 2019 seanwilso Leave a comment

Share this:

FitGreyStrong observation:

The mass media and ‘rogue’ researchers are confusing the public by suggesting that exercise does not facilitate weight loss. Sensationalised, poorly researched and inaccurate media presentations have misled consumers because a thorough assessment of the evidence wasn’t undertaken. Some sports scientists and doctors have further exacerbated the problem by claiming that physical inactivity does not contribute nor is associated with becoming overweight or obese.

FitGreyStrong Advice:

Be extremely careful about making any changes to your exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens based on information produced through the media. Consult competent health care experts with recognised qualifications and good reputations, do your own research, talk to those you trust and use some good old commonsense before making any changes.

For those interested in wanting to know more on this topic please continue reading see below.

For local Townsville residents interested in FitGreyStrong’s Exercise Physiology services or exercise programs designed to achieve the above-mentioned benefits or 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.

Exercise, weight loss and why it doesn’t work for everybody

The following article represents the first of a series of blogs that will explore the reasons behind why exercise may fail as a weight loss strategy. It is often assumed that when someone starts an exercise program, weight or body fat loss will happen naturally and almost by accident. However, recent research demonstrates that the magnitude of individual weight loss varies dramatically, with some losing a substantial amount of weight, others maintaining weight and a few actually gaining weight. The question is, how is this possible? What compensatory mechanisms are at play to negate the effectiveness of exercise?

In this first installment I want to discuss how the mass media and ‘rogue’ researchers have contributed to the unfortunate situation where the message about the efficacy of exercise has been obfuscated and distorted. As a result the general public have received mixed messages as to whether exercise has any role to play in weight loss at all. Some sections of the media have done a pretty good job at cherry-picking research or commentators that promote the idea that exercise is largely ineffective when it comes to weight loss. This has contributed to the public perception, then, that exercise may have limited usefulness as a method to facilitate weight loss.

One of the best examples of this occurred when the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC) TV show, Catalyst, aired a segment called “Toxic Sugar” (see here) claiming that:

“The studies show that exercise has virtually no effect on weight loss. One thing exercise does is it makes people hungry.”

weight loss and the media — Are the media trustworthy?

Such sweeping claims – that are not based on the actual scientific evidence – are particularly worrisome given the impact that such high-rating TV shows may have on the lifestyle choices and behaviour of their viewers. Why such organisations would besmirch the value of exercise is an interesting conundrum that has no easy answers.

There are a few possible reasons why this has happened and they are by no means based on any evidence I have been able to dig up and for this I apologise. The speed of the 24/7 news cycle, nevertheless, in conjunction with the need to sensationalise stories and news segments in an effort to gain viewer attention and watchership, have more than likely played a part. Media outlets do not undergo any critical assessment from any independent body – either internally or externally – to corroborate the accuracy of their program’s content. They can therefore function with relative impunity and little accountability. Media outlets are consequently free to make – without fear or retribution – poorly researched and misleading radio or TV shows that may not be in the public’s best interests.

Another reason why the media may produce content that is inaccurate and misleading is a simple one. Basically, the research that has gone into producing a show or print article has been hasty and superficial without a thorough review of the scientific evidence. If you consider the Catalyst segment mentioned above it was so lopsided because of one key component that was missing from the show – an opposing voice. The report ended up being totally biased because it did not present – in an objective manner – robust and contradictory scientific evidence. It also failed to interview any expert commentators that hold serious doubts about many of the claims that were aired.

The public’s confusion regarding the role of exercise in facilitating weight loss was further compounded, after well respected, credentialed doctors and sports scientists suggested in the British Journal of Sports Medicine that physical inactivity and obesity was a myth. Authors Malhotra and co in their editorial titled “It is time to bust the myth of physical inactivity and obesity: you cannot outrun a bad diet” (see here) made one of the most contentious claims in decades by suggesting that increasing obesity rates were not related to changes in physical activity levels. To put it another way, what they were essentially saying is this:

Doing no physical activity and sitting on your arse all day does not contribute to your risk of putting weight on or becoming obese!!

Here’s an interview on ABC’s Lateline with one of the authors, Dr Aseem Malhotra, discussing this publication (see here) if you are interested in listening to some of the commentary on this.

Let’s now just take a look at exactly what was put to print, so you the reader, can judge whether or not I am justified in being perplexed by their editorial. In it they state:

“Regular physical activity reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia and some cancers by at least 30%.”

Fine, that’s dandy, I’m definitely happy with that! They continue:

“However, physical activity does not promote weight loss (my emphasis). In the past 30 years, as obesity has rocketed, there has been little change in physical activity levels in the Western population” (p. 1).

Criterium racing — Exercise and physical activity doesn’t promote weight loss?

This claim was based on one paper (see here) published in 2013 by Amy Luke and Richard S Coope (Department of Public Health Sciences, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, USA) which theorised that energy expenditure changes over the 20th century could not explain the increased obesity levels that now exist in the West and increasingly so in developing countries.

Such assertions fail to take much notice of a hefty amount of research that has shown that for many, exercise is a very effective method for assisting weight loss (see here and here). So it is rather puzzling why a more balanced and nuanced account of our current understanding of exercise and weight loss was not undertaken by these authors. So just what did they ascribe the increasing rates of obesity to? Answer: Excessive carbohydrates and sugar. Now this is certainly an interesting hypothesis and one that will unfortunately require another blog to give this topic justice so you’ll have to wait for that one. What I will say though is that such examples truly exemplify the problems of intelligent, educated researchers entrenching themselves in a paradigm of thinking so deeply that any evidence to the contrary is either dismissed or diminished.

Anyway, following publication of this editorial the global media jumped on it. If you Google the title of their article you’ll notice the massive media coverage it received across all forms – print, broadcast and the internet. Social media like Facebook and Twitter picked up on it and the core message – that physical activity and exercise does not promote weight loss – was repeated ad nauseam. There was a harsh backlash from many corners – sports scientists, researchers, public health advocates and the like – but suffice it to say these criticisms and feedback did not generate any traction in the media nor were any corrective statements issued. The genie was out of the bottle and the message that exercise did not work for weight loss was left hanging in the air, slowly seeping and diffusing into the public’s consciousness. This just reinforces my earlier comments where the media over-sensationalise stories and news segments in an effort to gain viewer attention, watchership and market share. What seems apparent in my view, then, is that these organisations have expunged themselves of their ethical obligations to ensure that the public’s best interests are kept front and centre.

Perhaps not surprisingly there is research that contradicts the central plank of their argument which hinges on the notion that activity levels have remained static over the last 30 years. Church and colleagues (2011) (see here) found that:

“since 1960 the estimated mean daily energy expenditure due to work related physical activity has dropped by more than 100 calories in both women and men. Energy balance model predicted weights based on change in occupation-related daily energy expenditure since 1960 for each NHANES (U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys) examination period closely matched the actual change in weight for 40–50 year old men and women. For example from 1960–62 to 2003–06 we estimated that the occupation-related daily energy expenditure decreased by 142 calories in men. Given a baseline weight of 76.9 kg in 1960–02, we estimated that a 142 calories reduction would result in an increase in mean weight to 89.7 kg, which closely matched the mean NHANES weight of 91.8 kg in 2003–06. The results were similar for women.”

Based on these findings the increase in obesity levels – in the US at least – can be largely attributed to changes in energy expenditure via reductions in occupation-related physical activity rather than solely due to the over-consumption of carbohydrates and sugar as postulated by the editorial discussed above. The debate will probably continue to rage as to what the culprit is but logically it seems quite obvious that the answer lies between these two opposing explanations. So instead of it being purely diet-related or activity-related, the current obesity problem has probably come about because of simultaneous changes to both.

why doesn't exercise work for fat loss in everybody — Do your own research

To bring this to a close I would like to conclude by saying that certain sections of the mass media and ‘rogue’ researchers have undeniably contributed to the public’s confusion regarding the role of exercise for weight loss. Until such a time that all forms of media are more closely scrutinised and held accountable for the veracity of their productions, the advice from FitGreyStrong is to be very careful about making any changes to your exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens based on information accessed via the media. Consult competent health care experts with recognised qualifications and good reputations, do your own research, talk to those you trust and use some good old commonsense before making any changes.

To read the next installment of this series that summarizes some of the evidence supporting the idea that physical activity and exercise are important modulators of body fatness see Regular Exercise Doesn’t Promote Weight Loss: Fact or Fiction?

Disclaimer: All contents of the FitGreyStrong or FGS 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.

©FitGreyStrong

Share this:

Exercise Physiology, Strength, News/Media

Live FitGreyStrong ageing, health and exercise webinar

May 18, 2018 seanwilso Leave a comment

Share this:

FitGreyStrong specialises in the research, design and implementation of exercise-based programs that are specifically aimed to alter the trajectory of accelerated ageing caused by the sedentary lifestyles and poor nutritional practices of many older people.

As many of you would appreciate, deterioration in mental and physical function across the lifespan is an inevitable consequence of the human condition. On a global scale there will be more than 2 billion people aged over 60 yr by 2050; a doubling in little under 40 years. Such a radical change in demographics will pose significant health care challenges across the globe and have profound social, economic and political impacts on many aspects of life. Whilst sarcopenia and changes in musculoskeletal morphology have been shown to be predictive of, and correlated to, morbidity and premature death, it is the accompanying dynapenia where there is disproportionately greater loss of strength relative to muscle mass that is significantly more sensitive in predicting predisposition to disability, poor health outcomes and risk of mortality. However, reductions in skeletal muscle mass, strength and physical function in older adults, and the considerable negative effects that these changes have on quality of life and the ability to effectively carry out activities of daily living are all amenable. With the right dose and type of exercise all these things can be dramatically improved.

The live webinar titled “Why the strengthification of Generation X and Baby Boomers is the greatest health challenge of the 21st century” is scheduled to take place Tuesday 5th June 6.30-7.30 pm AEST (GMT+10:00). If you are interested in attending please register at fitgreystrong@outlook.com

The URL of the live webinar recording can be found here

or ⇓⇓

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.

Share this:

Exercise Physiology, Strength

Can Older Adults ‘Think’ Themselves Stronger?

May 17, 2018 seanwilso Leave a comment

Share this:

Research conducted recently and published in the journal Medicine showed that something amazing happens when you put intense mental effort into thinking or imaging you are lifting or moving with maximal exertion. Muscular strength can increase substantially and can match gains in strength made through more traditional intensive resistance training. What researchers discovered was that:

“strength of elbow flexor muscles, a frequently used large upper extremity muscle group during daily living, can be significantly improved by training of high motor effort combined with low-intensity muscle contraction in older adults, and the strength increase accompanied central signal augmentation that suggests an enhancement of descending command that was thought to have improved motor unit recruitment and activation leading to greater force production without changes in muscle morphology.”

Simple put, the strength of the elbow flexors – or colloquially known as “your guns” – were substantially increased in older adults after flexing the right elbow joint at minimal force whilst simultaneously mentally urging the forearm to pull upwards maximally. This type of ‘exercise’ is known as motor effort training or MET.

Motor effort training with low exercise intensity improves muscle strength and descending command in aging — Title Page

Trial summary: Training involved contracting the arm flexors at 30% of maximal effort while at the same time mentally urging the forearm to pull upward (elbow flexion) maximally for 5 seconds followed by 5 second of rest; this was repeated 25 times. Following a 2 minute rest this was repeated again. Training lasted for 12 weeks with 5 training session per week. This training protocol was compared to traditional strength training where participants performed 50 trials of isometric right elbow flexion at 80% of maximum force for 5 seconds in each training session; 60 session were completed. Training sessions, trials and trial duration were the same between groups. The intensity of the traditional strength training group was adjusted every 2 weeks based on subjects’ newer maximum strength attained as participants adapted to the training.

The current study is the first to show MET-induced strength gains in older adults with the improvements achieved statistically non-significant to traditional strength training. Strength improvements attained via MET appear to be modulated by an enhanced capacity to generate neurological drive from the motor cortex that then increases recruitment of motor units. What is particularly attractive about MET for older weak or frail adults is that it reduces problems and the risk of injury associated with performing conventional high-intensity strength training.

The authors conclude:

“The finding that the difference in strength increases between the MET and CST (traditional strength training) groups was statistically insignificant argues that training of motor imagery combined with low-intensity muscle exercise is a safe and effective method for muscle strengthening for vulnerable populations such as frail older individuals.”

Large increases in motor activity-related cortical potential

For local Townsville residents interested in FitGreyStrong’s Exercise Physiology services or exercise programs designed to improve health, physical function and quality of life or 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.

Share this: