May 28, 2014 at 00:53:55
“I'm so glad you found a lifestyle diet that works so well for you. The gist of the articles (and the double blind randomized trials done by gastroenterology researchers) is that the culprit causing IBS-like and other GI issues may not be the gluten. They suspect a carbohydrate found in wheat is to blame. What the lead researcher and her team found in the follow up study is that gluten-sensitivity is not as widespread as they thought in their previous, smaller study. They do believe a small percentage of people do have NCGS but don't know why. They suspect there may be a lot more people with undiagnosed, low grade celiac disease and recommend people with the symptoms get tested by their doctors rather than self diagnose. Probably a good idea so that the industry can get more accurate numbers but also because cutting out entire groups of foods can cause deficiencies in other areas. I have my fair share of GI symptoms too, but I am quite certain gluten isn't the problem. Certain dairy products are the problem for me and now that I'm reading up on the FODMAPs, I see some of those foods may be to blame in my case just as these doctors are suspecting.”
David4FreePress on May 28, 2014 at 08:51:54
“Thank you Jill. I think that the cat is out of the bag on self testing because of the popularity of gluten free. I think that we will see whether people abandon it or stick with it. Personally I think that people need to take more responsibility for their own health. Avoiding diabetes, which is certainly related to carbs, even in gluten, requires people taking the responsibility to watch what they eat. Avoiding gluten addiction will help. This is completely consistent with self testing for gluten and making sure to eat enough vegetables, so it is a good training exercise for responsibility. I have not heard of a doctor saying or proving any problem with eliminating gluten. Some people say that other nutrition might be ignored, which is not consistent with people taking more responsibility to watch what they eat and seems to be a miniscule possibility. There is opinion that gluten interferes with vitamin D absorption, so nutrition could be improved.
I think that someone with your symptoms is an excellent candidate for self testing and for making your own decision on gluten. You are well aware of nutrition. You could even blog about it if you like. I think that the biggest motivation for gluten free is experiential, so being there is an important part of the discussion. Other issues to watch when quitting include food cravings, brain fog, asthma, allergies, other immune issues, everything GI and joint pain.”
“The article deals in terms of IBS and doesn't mention the timetable of the gluten consumption test or the ages of the participants.
Experts have said that no human can completely digest gluten. It then becomes a function of the immune system to deal with and IBS is just one of the symptoms. Once past the bowel and into the blood stream immune system responses to the undigested proteins generate cytokines that can cause inflamation in many places and look like many different issues. After I quit gluten, I had noticeable improvement in concentration, food cravings, arthritic pain, GI issues and weightloss. I later found that everything that I experienced was consistent with information on TheGlutenSummit.com, which collected the opinions of 29 experts from various countries and related disciplines.
I do think that added sugar is the largest single cause of the obesity epidemic, but that the addictive quality of gluten, along with all of the added sugar and HFCS in bread, is a real KEY to most of obesity. As a part-time energy healer, I have seen at least a half dozen clients who cannot give up gluten to save their lives.”
David4FreePress on May 27, 2014 at 14:45:26
“I was able to copy the whole link and open it. I will review it and reply.”
David4FreePress on May 27, 2014 at 14:22:52
“Sorry Jill, but that page couldn't be found. I would be happy to read it.”
Nov 15, 2013 at 14:36:59
“Very well written and explained! I have written numerous posts on the advantages of interval training -- the scientific data is simply unarguable. I am huge proponent for cross training and HICTs (High Intensity Circuit Training). If exercisers learn to embrace workouts that "shuffle the deck" by mixing up a variety of movements using multiple muscle groups in different combinations, not only is there no time to get bored, but there is less risk of repetitive strain injuries along with other benefits like improved speed, reaction time, balance and more. Personally I use my steady state cardio for basic calorie management and "zone out" time. It's my moving mediation.”
HeyIts Deuce on Nov 17, 2013 at 08:34:40
“True, but it's also difficult to improve when you do too many different exercises. Building strength is all about overloading and adaptation.”
Aug 17, 2013 at 19:46:35
“Remember though, TIMING is everything.... not just in life but for sports nutrition! It's not as simple as just what foods to eat. I wish it was. But knowing how many grams of carbs and protein your body needs a day (based on your workouts and current body weight) is key. Nutrition is a science, so like most forms of science, you have to do some math!
Here's a little excerpt from an article by Len Kravitz, PhD:
Daily Recommendations for Carbohydrate Consumption for Fuel and Recovery*
Moderate-to-High intensity 1-3 hr/day
Include a mixture of protein and carbohydrate meal combinations immediately post-workout to assure optimal glycogen storage and cell maintenance/repair
Moderate intensity up to 1 hour/day
As long as total energy fuel needs are being met, the pattern of intake may be by client choice and convenience
Low intensity under 1 hour/day
Goal is for carbohydrate intake to maintain blood glucose levels during exercise and replace depleted muscle glycogen stores for faster recovery
*Fine-tune these recommendations individually with clients.
Adapted from Burke et al. (2011)
Journal of Sports Sciences, 29(Supp 1), S17-S27.”
May 30, 2014 at 14:00:57
“Sounds awesome and a bit like a class I teach at Equinox in Beverly Hills (Cross Training Extreme) with kettlebells and ViPRs instead. These kinds of workouts make you better and more agile for any sport (or just life in general). Let's open one up in LA!”
Jan 14, 2014 at 16:16:48
“I don't think I will find anything other than college sports stats if I search NCAA. It's the NCCA - the National Commission for Certifying agencies.
State licensing the way massage therapists, PT's and R.D.s are, has long been debated in the fitness arena for Personal Trainers and Group Fitness Instructors, but legislature always falls through. There's a several reasons for this so I'll just mention a few. One is that people are worried private training rates will go up making it too cost prohibitive for many to afford. Another is that gyms will also have to pay group instructors more which will raise gym fees. Most instructors across the country do this as a hobby or part time job - not as a career. And, a trainer cannot force you to do something that hurts, so the client can just say "no." So these are some reasons why licensing is not likely to happen. Although I for one, would not be opposed to it.”
pepper1311 on Jan 16, 2014 at 02:24:41
“Another good reason, you can be 'certified' online as trainer, go to a class ( pay for it) and be certified as group instructor. People who use 'trainers ' can't say NO they are ,in most case new to working out or addicted to having other motivate them. Licensure would clear out the hacks. May cost a few bucks more, but look at like this would you to unlicensed doctor or motor mechanic !”
Jan 13, 2014 at 14:57:04
“Group training, Private training and Health / Wellness coaching certifications should be NCCA accredited meaning the course content and tests are vetted by a supervising board to make sure the educational content is in line with current standards and science.”
pepper1311 on Jan 14, 2014 at 02:29:55
“NCAA? worst organization on earth! Look up CFO of organization. If anything is new is state licensure so trainers would need minimun standards and yearly CEC' s , license makes one personally responsible for actions.”
Cutting to the chase, the article ends with this wise observation:
"The most obvious conclusion from this review is not that dieting makes you fat, but that being fat makes you (more likely to) diet. That the research literature fails to substantiate the success claimed by some weight-loss products should not lead us to reinforce a causal association that is naive and inaccurate. The assertion that dieting makes you fat fails to recognise that people who successfully control their weight are often misclassified as non-dieters and that obesity causes dieting rather than
vice versa. Most importantly, it underplays the roles of biology and the environment in the determination of weight gain and as barriers to sustained weight loss."”
Oct 11, 2013 at 18:42:05
“One more comment... for those like me who actually check out some of the references in these articles, in #9 of Bailor's references, the article cited by A.J. Hill concludes by saying:
"The most obvious conclusion from this review is not that dieting makes you fat, but that being fat makes you (more likely to) diet....The assertion that dieting makes you fat fails to recognise that people who successfully control their weight are often misclassified as non-dieters and that obesity causes dieting rather than vice versa. Most importantly, it underplays the roles of biology and the environment in the determination of weight gain."
Oct 11, 2013 at 18:40:31
“I hope no one who reads this actually BELIEVES this blindly as truth. There is SO much more to realize!
FACT: Not burning the same or more calories than you consume WILL lead to weight gain.
Bailor's post doesn't broach how many calories were consumed or burned. Did they exercise? If not, were they very active people who walk to work, do housework, fidget, do chores..... all things that burn calories? Did the test subjects who ate more "high quality foods" sit around on the couch all day and night? MUCH of our body weight has to do with genetics (thin parents, fat parents), and psychology (binging before and after diets / deprivation mind set), and lifestyle (sedentary vs. active). People who tend to eat higher quality foods also tend to be more ACTIVE. Telling people they can eat more if the food is higher quality is just cruel! I tried being vegan in my late 20's believing the high quality, nutritionally dense foods would be good for my waistline. I gained weight and I was working out hard. But I didn't count how many calories I was eating. Turned out I was onsuming over 3500 calories/day. Unless you have some kind of medical issue or unfortunate genetics, the surest way to keep weight off is to keep tabs on your calories coming in (which most people underestimate) and have a good sense of how many calories are going out (something most people grossly overestimate).”
hp blogger Jonathan Bailor on Oct 11, 2013 at 20:19:18
“Hi Jill - Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. You are spot on that "Not burning the same or more calories than you consume WILL lead to weight gain." You are also 100% correct that the take away from the article should not be that calories don't count. Thanks for making sure this is clear to readers.
My hope was to illustrate that the blind guidance to eat less to cure metabolic dysfunction is a bit like telling someone with respiratory dysfunction (aka allergies) to just breathe less to cure what ails them. It is practically impossible to chronically overeat if we are eating (in order of volume): non-starchy vegetables, nutrient dense proteins, low-fructose fruits, and whole food fats. Quality makes quantity a non-issue.
Calories count. I’m just a fan of simplifying life and letting your body balance them for you by eating as much as you want, whenever you are hungry, as long as it’s high-quality food the body is designed to digest. When you do this, you will drop your set-point weight, unconsciously consume the appropriate number of calories, take in dramatically more nutrition, overflow with energy, and never feel hungry.
You are spot on that calories count. It's just that counting them can’t be necessary for health, considering that before most people knew what a calorie was about 90 percent of the population avoided obesity and over 99 percent of us avoided type 2 diabetes.”
Oct 11, 2013 at 17:23:14
“You forgot to mention how much they exercise. If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. Remember the scientist who did the "Twinkie diet?" He ate only junk food, but ate LESS calories than he had been traditionally eating and LOST weight. He didn't feel great because of all the crap, BUT his vitals IMPROVED from the weight loss (including his cholesterol). I tried it on myself too a couple of times at random and I lost weight as well (eating less, but not healthy). On the flip side, I also tried a vegan diet for 4 months and GAINED weight. Why? Because I ate more calories than I burned. The human body is a machine. Putting in more fuel than you need will just weight it down!”
hp blogger Jonathan Bailor on Oct 12, 2013 at 10:10:42
“"If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight." True. Also, "If you cut off your leg, you will lose weight" or "If you pour gasoline over your garden, you will lose weeds." What we as wellness professionals are called to do is to figure out the deeper how and why of long-term fat loss, happiness, and health. Not simply to make tautological statements.
The “eat less, exercise more” approach can work—just not very often, easily, or enjoyably. Studies show that counting calories does not keep off body fat over the long term, 95.4 percent of the time. To put that into perspective, quitting smoking cold turkey has a 94.5 percent failure rate. Put these to facts together: we are more likely to give up the third most addictive substance in the world (trailing only heroin and cocaine) without any help than we are to shed weight using the “gold-standard” advice you have been taught your whole life.
“How may the medical profession regain its proper role in the treatment of obesity?” Albert Stunkard, MD, chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and founder of the Center for Weight and Eating Disorders at the University of Pennsylvania, asks. “We can begin by looking at the situation as it exists and not as we would like it to be. . . . If we do not feel obliged to excuse our failures, we may be able to investigate them.””
Alvarask on Oct 12, 2013 at 06:02:11
“Losing weight by reducing calories can only be achieved by people who have a relatively healthy metabolism. It is a very simplistic view. Many people who are reducing calories in the hopes of losing fat are losing muscle instead...and very importantly, they are losing heart muscle. I think we all know now that caloric reduction is the most proven way humans have ever found if gaining fat in the long term.”
Sep 24, 2013 at 15:20:53
“Everyone commenting here is mentioning COMMON injuries like meniscus tears, dislocations, accidental bodily functions, etc. The issue here is more people getting rhabdomyolysis - a rare, potentially lethal condition that can permanently disable you.
There are those who think it's cool to workout to the point of severe injury. I get that. I have a lot of friends and colleagues who compete in extreme sports where mistakes cause death - a tough injury to recover from.
I've been a trainer for 20 years. More times than I can count, I have trained or raced to where I could not move limbs for days - weeks. But as a responsible coach, I ask clients and students to listen to their bodies. Doesn't seem like enough CF'ers are encouraged to do that.
I think people should be cautioned when training to know when to stop.... when too much pain is going to make you sorry and, to measure the risk / reward.
When I push myself to the point of where my next few days to a week are going to miserable, I know what risk I'm taking and have a bottle of ibuprofen and ice packs ready to go. I think the CF community takes injury risk a little too lightly. They joke about rhabdo with a mascot named "Rhabdo the Clown" or give it an endearing name like "Uncle Rhabdo."
Raising awareness to risks is a good thing and responsible trainers should not be exactly that... Responsible.”
Christina Medina Ocampo on Sep 24, 2013 at 17:13:19
person Angie has done this to, and the CrossFit mantra is to never not go in because you're sore - come in and work it out (with the caveat that you are the steward of your own body and should just be safe). So I went in thinking a workout would help and did the "Surprise" workout on the 23rd of December, which included snatches, wallballs and lunges. The snatches and wallballs exacerbated my already wrecked arms and lats. The next day my lats felt like they were detached from my skeleton and my arms were permanently popeyed (and were so for 6 days after)..."
There was nothing there about ignorant coaches yelling at athletes to finish. It doesn't sound like this athlete even displayed many overt symptoms of being totally taxed out. This person sounds like they took responsibility for it. They didn't hydrate, worked out without rest, and pushed themselves too hard. Should CrossFit coaches greet each athlete at the door with a questionnaire asking "have you hydrated? slept well? been sick? been hungover? are you excessively sore?" No. When I feel sore, I usually tell my coach and he'll tell me, "take it easy when we do the ________ (part of the workout that may worsen the muscles)." A lot of people don't say ANYTHING to the coach about being sore because they don't want to be seen as whiners. Me, I don't care lol.”
Christina Medina Ocampo on Sep 24, 2013 at 17:12:47
“"But as a responsible coach, I ask clients and students to listen to their bodies. Doesn't seem like enough CF'ers are encouraged to do that."
So...you read about Rhabdo and conclude that CrossFitt coaches are irresponsible by not encouraging clients to listen to their bodies?? "Doesn't SEEM like enough" is really just a way to overgeneralize this rare occurrence. I don't know if you saw a comment here from a woman who got Rhabdo during a SPIN CLASS. Does that mean those coaches are being irresponsible? The cases that I've heard of, by researching those who have actually experienced it, were almost always preceded by dehydration or illness. Check this out:
"How on earth did this happen? I did Angie Rx'd in 24:48 while somewhat dehydrated and not in peak condition (I had a few drinks the day before, and had food poisoning the day before that). I didn't hydrate properly after Angie. I was wrecked, tired, and good god did a beer sound good after that mess of a workout, so I had that instead of protein and electrolytes. The damage was done - if I had hydrated properly after my post-workout brew with electrolytes, moderately good nutrition, and got a good night sleep, I think I would have been alright. Honestly I don't remember if I did, but I'm sure I drank a ton of water. The next day I had very limited mobility in my arms - I couldn't straighten them. I wasn't the only”
talexand32 on Sep 24, 2013 at 15:56:55
“"Raising awareness to risks is a good thing," trying to say it is someone's dirty little secret to smash an exercise method is another. I have wrestled in college, I have competed in MMA, I found an interest in running after HS, I enjoy mountain bike racing and if I train like an idiot in any of those it could lead me to the same result. The article does not need to specifiy CF as if it has some secret goal to destroy people and their bodies. If any athlete or person who exercises went to an extreme this is a risk for any of them. As a wrestler my body has been pushed to the limit many times, pushing past physical discomfort and increasing my mental threshold. With that said, I have never tried to do some weight or exercise that would blow out my muscles or risk my injury. My muscles are no good for competition if they are injured or blown out. The "raising awareness to risks is a good thing" but lets not just try to target one program, rather we could inform anyone who does extreme physical exercise. That is the problem with the article. I myself do not do CF. My friend in the military does and he knows how to intelligently workout. CF is not the issue, people being less prideful and more intelligent in regards to exercise is.”
The numbers, especially for competitive athletes, are sobering. According to their calculations, static stretching reduces strength in the stretched muscles by almost 5.5 percent, with the impact increasing in people who hold individual stretches for 90 seconds or more. While the effect is reduced somewhat when people’s stretches last less than 45 seconds, stretched muscles are, in general, substantially less strong....
...And as a result, they found, explosive muscular performance also drops off significantly, by as much as 2.8 percent. That means that someone trying to burst from the starting blocks, blast out a ballistic first tennis serve, clean and jerk a laden barbell, block a basketball shot, or even tick off a fleet opening mile in a marathon will be ill served by stretching first. Their performance after warming up with stretching is likely to be worse than if they hadn’t warmed up at all."
“Jill, the Times cites the same research you did. But the research you cited was very clear:
The detrimental effects of static stretch are mainly limited to longer durations (more than 60 seconds), which may not be typically used during preexercise routines in clinical, healthy, or athletic populations. Shorter durations of stretch (less than 60 seconds) can be performed in a preexercise routine without compromising maximal muscle performance."
Will you get that into your head? How can you read that, and still attempt to argue that stretching should NOT be performed before exercise.
And, if you actually had a degree in an exercise related field (as I do) and had a post-graduate degree in an exercise related field (as I do) you wouldn't be recommending that novices lift weights without corrective-stretching (which all novices have).
I mean, even ACSM teaches you this as the basics of any routine. But, of course you aren't certified by ACSM (as I am) because you lack a degree in Kinesiogy (as I have) and a Masters in exercise physiology (as I have).
You keep pushing your disinformation, while "creating" your knockoff TRX systems.”
Sep 19, 2013 at 12:11:50
I see you like to just argue for argument sake, so enjoy yourself.
Thank you for not disagreeing with my overall point - that given the methods of stretching, the better option for a warm up is Dynamic Stretching for the muscles that will be used during the workout that will be performed.
As you postulated, some people do in fact do yoga classes before their more intense or strength workouts. I have seen it. I am sure you would agree this is not ideal and that yoga is best served after a strength, cardio or high intensity workout.
When you find the data to support your comment that static stretches for less than 60 sec. are what "99% of people in gym are doing" I will check back in with you. Until then, thank you for arguing but still agreeing. :))”
gmailliw on Sep 19, 2013 at 14:12:56
“"The detrimental effects of static stretch are mainly limited to longer durations (more than 60 seconds), which may not be typically used during preexercise routines in clinical, healthy, or athletic populations."
Did you get that, Jill? Are you capable of comprehending this? I mean: this comes from the very research you attempted to center your article on.
Come on, just say, "Man, I messed up." But you won't. You are incapable of doing it.”
gmailliw on Sep 19, 2013 at 14:03:23
“Argue for arguments sake?
YOU MISREPRESENTED THE STUDY YOU BUILT YOUR ARTICLE OFF OF!!!!!!!
And no, there is NO GOOD REASON to have someone with muscle imbalances do dynamic stretching. At all. Period.”
Sep 19, 2013 at 01:40:26
“If your muscles are never getting sore from your workouts, then you should be ok. But if you're workouts are a making a muscle group sore and you are not giving that area time to rest, it could be limiting your results.”
Sep 19, 2013 at 01:38:23
“You are way off point. Corrective exercise programs are not being addressed here. I am all for static stretching to aid in correcting muscular imbalances. Do you not agree that Dynamic Stretching is the better option for someone doing a cross training workout, a boot camp style or intense workout?”
gmailliw on Sep 19, 2013 at 09:50:10
“"It's still good to do static stretching for maintaining and improving flexibility, but save it for the cool down."
--Jill Brown's own words.
Now, after making a fo/ol of herself, she's attempting to qualify this statement by saying that she is actually FOR corrective static stretching. Well, Jill, nearly EVERY person that walks into a gym has a muscle imbalance.
And since this article is directed at novices, nearly every person that reads this article requires corrective stretching. But, in your article, you told them to save it for AFTER their workouts.
Sep 19, 2013 at 01:31:29
“I read all the studies thoroughly POSTED the links to them so readers could access the published reports. If you read my blog, you will see I did not mention how long to hold a static stretch for. I don't know where you get your facts though, "(which 99% of people in gym are doing)" Can you show me where that statistic is from please? I have been teaching and training in gyms for over 20 years and I can absolutely say that some people are holding stretches too long before lifting heavy weights or doing intense exercise. I make this point so people are aware not to overstretch before exercise but to save it for the end. You will see in most workout programs that pre-workout static stretches are usually pretty short. This is good.”
gmailliw on Sep 19, 2013 at 14:11:11
“READ VERY SLOWLY (if you are capable):
"The detrimental effects of static stretch are mainly limited to longer durations (more than 60 seconds), which may not be typically used during preexercise routines in clinical, healthy, or athletic populations."
This is from the link YOU centered your article on. Stop embarrassing yourself.”
gmailliw on Sep 19, 2013 at 09:43:37
“"You will see in most workout programs that pre-workout static stretches are usually pretty short."
And what does the research say about "short" preworkout static stretching? This:
"Shorter durations of stretch (less than 60 seconds) can be performed in a preexercise routine WITHOUT compromising maximal muscle performance."
Jill, you're looking foo/lish. Quit while you're behind.”
gmailliw on Sep 19, 2013 at 09:34:30
“No, you didn't mention anything about length of time (which is all the more troubling).
Instead, you simply said that static stretching will reduce performance (which is false, if you hold a stretch for less than 60 seconds).
Seriously, Jill, you could have avoided embarrassing yourself by reading the reports first. Heck, the "conclusion" written in the report was only a single paragraph. If you had read it, you wouldn't have cited your report.