Newsletter
HotBod Fall 07
Welcome to all the new subscribers to the HotBod newsletter as well as those who have been with us from the beginning. Each month we'll explore issues relating to the three major areas of fitness: exercise, nutrition and supplementation. As always, your comments, questions and suggestions are always appreciated.
TRAINING CORNER: Is it okay to lift weights everyday if you're training on a split routine?
There is a misperception in the fitness world that as long as you train different muscle groups from one session to the next (called a "split routine"), it's okay to lift weights on a daily weights. While you can get away with increasing the frequency of your workouts for short periods of time (I often do this when training elite fitness and figure competitors for a show), extended periods of continuous training without allowing for recuperation is bound to lead to overtraining, regardless of the training split.
Simply stated, overtraining is the product of performing too much strenuous physical activity. However, the exact threshold for overtraining varies from person to person. Everyone responds differently to exercise. Some people can tolerate large volumes of training while others much less. What's more, factors such as nutritional status, sleeping patterns, hormonal and enzymatic concentrations, muscle fiber composition, and previous training experience all can have an impact on recuperative capacity and, therefore, the point at which overtraining rears its ugly head. But ultimately, anyone and everyone can and will become overtrained if they perform too much exercise.
The idea behind a split routine is to provide an optimal balance of volume and recovery, conceivably helping to stave off overtraining. Push/pull, agonist/antagonist, and upper body/lower body are popular choices for training splits and, when properly implemented, can elicit superior gains in muscular development by permitting more frequent training capacity.
Unfortunately, though, a split routine doesn't completely isolate muscles to the degree that most believe. You see, during the performance of exercises, there is a synergistic interaction between muscle groups. The biceps, for instance, are integrally involved in the performance of back maneuvers, the shoulders and triceps in many exercises for the chest, and the glutes and hamstrings during compound leg movements. Other muscles function as stabilizers: the abdominals and erector spinae (the muscles of the lower back), in particular, help to provide stability in a variety of upper and lower body exercises, contracting statically throughout each move. The fact is, when a muscle is repeatedly subjected to intense physical stress (even on a secondary level) without being afforded adequate rest, the rate at which mitrotrauma occurs outpaces the reparation process. The end result: impaired localized muscular development.
To avoid the effects of overtraining, your exercise program must allow for adequate recovery. Don't succumb to the misguided theory that if a little bit is good, more must be better. By shortchanging recuperation, your body never has the chance to adequately recover from the extreme demands being placed on it. Inevitably, you become grossly overtrained and results come to a grinding halt. With respect to exercise, less can be more!
Although everyone has varying recuperative abilities, a period of about 48 hours is required for adequate recovery between strength training sessions. Research has shown this to be the approximate time for protein synthesis to fully run its course (protein synthesis is the phenomenon where muscles are "rebuilt" from the breakdown that occurs during training). Accordingly, for most strength training protocols, a three-day per week routine is ideal, with training performed on non-consecutive days (i.e. Monday, Wednesday, Friday, etc). This is true even for split routines. You can perhaps get away with a four day split, such as a two on/one off, two on/two off (i.e. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday) if the routine is structured properly. But any more than four days of hard training per week and you begin to risk overtraining-certainly a seven day a week routine is bound to leave you overtrained.
Moreover, it's important to make judicious use of your sets. Marathon sessions will only serve to overtax your neuromuscular system and deplete your energy reserves. Even at the highest levels of fitness, large muscle groups generally require no more than nine to twelve total sets while smaller muscle groups need only six to nine; any more is basically superfluous.
NUTRITION CORNER: Demystifying net impact carbs…
The low carb craze has made the term 'net impact carbs' a popular buzz phrase with those looking to reduce body fat levels. Simply stated, it refers to the amount of carbs in a product that promote an insulin response. As you probably know, carbs can raise blood sugar levels, causing insulin levels to spike.
Why is this important? Well, high blood sugars levels cause the pancreas to secrete insulin in large amounts. Insulin is a storage hormone. While its primary purpose is to neutralize blood sugar, it also is directly responsible for converting sugars into body fat as well as inhibiting the conversion of stored fat into energy. When carbohydrates are ingested, the pancreas secretes insulin to clear blood sugar from the circulatory system. Depending on the quantities and types of carbs consumed, insulin levels can fluctuate wildly, heightening the possibility of fat storage.
To mitigate insulin response, many nutriceuticals substitute high-glycemic carbs with alternative carb-based nutrients called sugar alcohols (also called polyols), which have a negligible impact on blood sugar. Theoretically, by limiting carbohydrates that increase insulin levels (i.e. net impact carbs), you can minimize the deleterious effects of insulin and promote better weight management.
But while it's true that carbohydrates that raise blood sugar can be detrimental to maintaining low body levels, the concept of net-impact carbs isn't as clear cut as it may seem. Generally speaking, meal replacement bars also contain protein, fat and fiber. This slows digestion and moderates glycemic response, thereby reducing the fat-storing effects of insulin.
On the plus side, the sugar alcohols (such as maltitol, mannitol, sorbitol, Xylitol, and HSH) used as replacement carbs are not able to be fully absorbed by the body and thus are lower in calories than "standard" carbohydrates. They contain between two to three calories per gram as opposed to the four calories per gram in glucose, fructose and galactose (glycerol, a sugar alcohol found in many bars due to their propensity to keep foods moist and improve shelf life, also contains four calories per gram). Since calories do count and ultimately have the greatest effect on whether you gain or lose body fat, this is a signicant benefit.
In sum, nutrition is a complex subject and it's important to understand that many factors come into play when designing a regimented eating plan. While net impact carbs can be a valuable resource, they should be considered in context with the nutritional content and caloric density of the food source.
SUPPLEMENT REVIEW: Hoodia
What it is: An herb derived from the South African plant known as Hoodia gordonii.
What it does: Hoodia is marketed as a supplement that will help to shed unwanted pounds without dieting or exercise.
The verdict: Hoodia has long been used by South African bushmen for appetite suppression. It's active ingredient is a molecule called P57 that purportedly works on the hypothalamus, sending a signal to the brain that the body is full and thereby reducing caloric consumption. Since calories in vs. calories out ultimately dictates weight loss, it would seem that Hoodia has promise as a weight loss aid. But despite the hyped up claims, there is very little science to support its use. To date, only one published study has looked at the effects of P57 on appetite suppression. And although the study suggested there might be some benefit in this regard, it was performed on lab rats-not humans-so it's not clear what can be taken from it. An isolated study is rarely ever conclusive in itself, especially in a case like this, considering the limitations of the protocol. What's more, given the lack of peer reviewed research, we still don't know about possible side effects. Remember, as a dietary supplement, Hoodia is not regulated by the FDA and it could be months or years before medical issues are reported. Anecdotally, the results of Hoodia seem to be mixed. For every person who says it works, another says it doesn't. Bottom line: Considering the scant evidence for efficacy, the lack of data on potential side effects and the fact that Hoodia is quite expensive, the risk/reward quotient simply isn't there as yet. A lot more research will need to be undertaken before a recommendation is warranted.
Supplement Grade: Incomplete
