Regular readers of my blog will know that I’m a little bit of a science geek.  I read studies and try to report the science with as little bias as possible.  However, I’m often criticized for putting a little too much stock in research.

People say things like “if we waited for science to tell us what to do we’d never be able to do anything” or ”just because it hasn’t been tested in a lab doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable”.

Personally, I agree with both of these statements.  Often practice precedes scientific investigation in the fitness world and we can’t always wait around until research catches up.  But when science IS done that contradicts some people’s practices many are quick to dismiss it by suggesting that science somehow has no application to their particular pet theory because “it works in the real world”.

In fact, some go as far as to say that they test theories on their clients and only use science to later confirm and support their ideas.  They even regularly post numerous studies on their websites and blogs, but only those that are in line with thier beliefs.

Interestingly, this is the exact OPPOSITE of what science is supposed to do.  Studies are actually designed to TEST a hypothesis rather than to support it.  If you’re just looking for support, you’re obviously going to find it.

However, this particular tendency (called confirmation bias) does little to advance practice as it doesn’t really doesn’t force you to critically evaluate your programs…especially if you’re quick to dismiss contradictory evidence.

As an example consider the recent article I wrote on the infamous Tabata protocol discussing the fact that it has actually no scientific backing suggesting that it is greater for fat loss than any other method.  Despite this, people still claim to have “success” with the protocol.

Instead I might be inclined to suggest that if your fat loss program is a compilation of a number of things (including diet, resistance training, and Tabatas) evidence that one element may not be useful lends credence to the fact that the other two elements are probably effective, but the one you’re attached to could have little to do with the positive results you’re experiencing.

All in all, I guess I’m suggesting that instead of looking exclusively for things to support your theories, make sure to also seek out articles and studies that challenge the things you believe in.  After all, it is this information that will allow you to form a unbiased opinion after considering all the facts.

As usual, your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Each week as I sit down to write a post I generally have a good idea where I want to go with it.  However, I’d love to know more about what YOU want to see on the site so please take a minute to fill out the survey at the link below to give me a little feedback.  It is 4 questions and it will literally take about 2 minutes.  I write this content for you!

Click HERE to take the survey!

DISCLAIMER

Someone once told me that if you win one thousand battles you still have a thousand enemies, whereas if you change one thousand minds you have a thousand allies.  A almost always try to write with this in mind.  But when it comes to children, nutrition, and obesity I get pretty fired up and I sometimes can’t control the things I say or write.  Today I do intend to present some factual information in an attempt to change some minds.  However, this is an area where I’m just itching to explode so consider yourself warned.

As I’ve mentioned before, I think that rather than being distinct entities, obesity and being absolutely shredded are simply different points on the same continuum.  Interestingly, it seems those who only have 5 pounds to lose face many of the same types of barriers as those with 100 pounds to lose (although heavier people tend to have more).  Moreover, my interest in childhood obesity is related to the fact that children generally grow into adults and carry with them the habits and behaviours they have learned in their formative years.

 
Given these beliefs, you can see why it might upset me (read: piss me right off) when parents don’t make the effort to give their children wholesome foods and limit their consumption of various packaged non-foods.  This post is for all of those who are parents, know parents, are thinking of one day that they might be parents, or have ever heard of parents .  Before I really get into it though, here are a few points I’d like to rehash from a previous post.

- The only group in North America in which obesity rates are still climbing is 6-9 year olds.

 - 90% of obese kids have a lipid abnormility (high cholesterol or triglycerides) and 50% have hyperinsulinemia.

- The best predictor for adult obesity is childhood obesity.

- 20% of obese children are likely to have a heart attack and 15% will have Diabetes by age 38.

Are you following me?  More children are becoming obese, many are having trouble with their lipids and produce too much insulin, they’ll probably carry this into adulthood, and are likely to have a heart attack and/or Diabetes by the time they’re 38.  That’s a pretty rude awakening.

So why aren’t people doing anything about this? 

Unfortunately, studies have now shown that many parents are unable to accurately determine when a child is obese.  In fact, in some studies as few as 18% of parents thought their children had weight problems when they were clinically obese.  (Without having seen any studies, I’d be willing to bet that many adults fail to identify themselves as obese either).  In any case, you might expect your physician to alert you to your child’s obesity problem, but further studies have demonstrated that physicians fail as often as parents to identify weight problems in children.  So not only are kids at risk, but parents and physicians (yes, the same parents and physicians who are charged with making important decisions for the welfare of these children) don’t even know it.

 
If you’re still following me you’ll understand why it made me completely enraged when I recently heard that a doctor told his patient to “not deprive her child of sugary snacks and junk food because that might prevent the child from gaining weight”.  What makes it even worse is that this woman is now using this recommendation to justify feeding her child candy, chicken nuggets, and hot dogs.

Guess what this is Doc?

While the above photo looks like yummy strawberry soft-serve ice cream, it is actually mechanically separated chicken.  After the primary cuts of meat are taken from the chicken the carcass is passed through a high pressure sieve to recover the lovely substance you see above.  This is what is often used to make chicken nuggets, hot dogs, and pressed into those little blocks behind the deli counter from which we slice off cold cuts for our kids.  Basically, your kids are eating lips and assholes.  Still think this is a good idea doc?

But don’t worry.  Kids won’t be eating this stuff if you buy them all beef hot dogs because the nervous system tissue of cattle was getting into the meat and the fear of mad cow disease has stopped companies from processing beef this way.  Beef dogs are probably really healthy now.  I’m sure chicken nervous systems are fine too.  Either one must be full of the nutrients children need for growth.

But they won’t eat anything else…

Then, of course, on the other end there are parents who say ”I have to feed my child this because my kid won’t eat anything but chicken nuggets and Twinkies”.  Really?  Does your 3 year old do the shopping in your house?  And how exactly did he or she gain a taste for these “foods” if you weren’t bringing them into the house in the first place? 

I have an idea!  Instead of addressing your shortcomings as a parent and making the executive decision as a parent to provide different foods in an attempt to make your child healthy you could just let your toddler dictate their intake.  After all, it isn’t the job for the parent to provide guidance when a child when the child objects or creates a fuss.  I also think three year olds should be allowed to vote and preschoolers should be allowed to drive.  After all, they must have the intellectual capacity to make these types of decisions since they are obviously able to make good choices about something as important as their own health.

Oh, by the way, here is a picture of the 37 ingredients that go into making a Twinkie.

In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m being sarcastic and I’m flat out fed up with parents feeding their children shit because their kids “don’t like anything else”.  If you’re a parent you have been blessed with the gift of raising a child, but that comes with the responsibility of feeding your children the appropriate foods.

You might think I’m an extremist and that I’m probably going to deprive my child.  And if deprivation means that my daughter won’t taste McDonalds before 2 years of age (or hopefully ever) you’re absolutely right.  She’ll also be deprived of nutrient deficiencies, Diabetes, and packaged garbage disguised as food. 

Granted, she will have the occaisional treat like a home baked cookie or piece of candy every so often, but she won’t have a treat every day because a treat per day isn’t a treat, it’s a habit.  If you’re feeding your child junk food or sugar bars (otherwise called ”granola bars”) daily you’re neglecting your responsibility as a parent and you’re doing your child a disservice.

Please feel free to comment below.  If this rings true for you as well, please share this post.

A few weeks ago the following two videos showed up on an interesting guest blog by Perry Nickelston on my friend Carson Boddicker’s site HERE.

I don’t think you’ll get much argument that the “inner core” is made up primarily of the TVA, multifidi, pelvic floor, and diaphragm.  I would also agree that if the inner core is not working reflexively that you’ll develop a high threshold strategy to stabilize the core resulting in inefficient movement and even pain.  This is why strengthening the TVA and multifidi doesn’t work for eliminating back pain.  It is because reflexive timing and not strength is the issue.

However, what I’m not sure I get is how this test measures the function of the inner core.  Granted, it is certainly a lot harder than I expected (try it if you don’t believe me), and the rolling patterns left my intercostals in pain for a couple days.  But I think that stating that this test can measure the function of the inner core and that it can be corrected by repeating the various rolling patterns might be a little heavy on the speculation.  I’m not sure that there is any EMG to suggest that this might be the case.  You’ll definitely learn a new movement pattern, but whether it is related to inner core function is something I’m not totally sure about. 

Since the chop and lift patterns are often suggested in relation to these exercises, I’d be inclined to think they have something to do with rotation/anti-rotation patterns.  I’m interested to hear what you all think.

Give the test and drills a try and let me know your thoughts.

As some of you may already know, my good friend and colleague Mike Robertson is hosting a day long seminar coming up in August and the lineup is going to be SICK!

Check this out:

Brian Grasso – Youth performance superstar

Lee Taft – Speed expert extraordinaire

Mike Robertson – Some guy with a blog

Pat Rigsby – Fitness business maven

Bill Hartman – Corrective exercise and performance genius

Brett Jones – Kettlebell guru

If you can make it out I’d definitely suggest that you take a day and learn from some of the best in this industry.

Check out the complete schedule and sign up HERE.