The Life & Times of James Steele II

AHS 2012 - What a Shame.... missing out on Doug McGuff & Eric Daniels

2012-02-10T09:32:00.000-08:00

Doug McGuff has kindly shared with the BBS community mine and James Fisher's recent publication tackling the question "Is Truth in Authority or Authority in Truth?"

In that post Doug also shared some unfortunate news.

"This week I was disappointed to learn that the presentation that Eric Daniels and I had planned for the 2012 Ancestral Health Symposium was not selected for inclusion. The title of the proposed lecture is: From Spontaneous Organization to Central Planning in Just One Year: How Policy Produced the Health Crisis and Will Cause Ancestral Health to Fail."
This is a topic desperately needing to be covered and presented well. Great ideas, like the Ancestral Health movement, regarding our health need free market forces to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible, not too mention free of coercion.

Doug has suggested that both he and Eric Daniels produce the presentation anyway in order to upload to YouTube and I'm pleased to read that Eric has agreed!

I've been a fan of Doug since I first stumbled across the early BBS you tube video's and picked up my own copy. The book encapsulated a lot of what I had been forming in my mind from reading the literature and is always on my shelf in my office ready to reference and share with others.

Eric Daniels on the other hand I didn't know alot about until the last couple of days. I had seen a number of his lectures on the Ayn Rand bookstore but hadn't had got round to accessing and viewing any of them.

So the other day I decided to see what was on YouTube and came across some great videos which I have embedded below.

Enjoy, and hopefully we wont have to wait too long for Doug and Eric's presentation.

Is Truth in Authority or Authority in Truth?

2012-02-01T07:58:00.000-08:00

Myself and James Fisher have just had another paper published together discussing what we perceive to be limitations in the scientific publication process.

Here is the link to the paper in Journal of Exercise Physiology Online.

"Is Truth in Authority or Authority in Truth? Limitations to the Publication of Scientific Research"

I would write a nice accompanying discourse to go along with this publication, but James Fisher has already done that and so I'll recommend that you all head over to his blog to have a read (after reading the paper first of course!!)

Enjoy.

Can Comment!!

2012-01-30T00:35:00.001-08:00

Seems that I can comment again on posts here whilst using my office computer. Yay!!

Can't Comment

2012-01-17T01:16:00.000-08:00

There seems to be some issue with commenting on here for me. Been going on the last week or so. Trying to figure out if its the Universities firewall settings or something else.

Hopefully be back up and running soon and I'll respond to any comments that need a response.

A Quick Lesson on Obama's Socialism

2012-01-16T14:08:00.000-08:00

Via Tim Ryan's (owner of Precision Fitness') facebook page.

"An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged an......d everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation."

Hillfit - "Simply get yourself strong and enjoy your life and all this world has to offer!"

2012-01-15T11:51:00.000-08:00

Well Chris' new e-book has finally been released. I was fortunate enough to see an early copy to review and had the following to offer which can be seen on http://www.hillfit.com/ where you can also purchase the book (which you should definately do).

“I think it is a great book that achieves what it sets out to do; namely to provide a simple, safe and effective program of exercise to improve strength and apply that to the activities of Hillwalking, Hiking, and Backpacking. It considers many aspects of program design that are often glossed over when considering application such as its safety and convenience. The program is explained thoroughly with reference to the scientific literature and shows that effective exercise does not require fancy equipment to be scientific, just your own body and an understanding of how to apply the science to it. The book is written with the trainee fully in mind and I hope that this book spurs more walkers to undertake appropriate exercise to improve their strength.”

Reading Hillfit sent a resounding message to me which had been struggling to get through for a while. All to often we focus on the exercise as the end in itself, which for some it can be, but we often fail to appreciate what we can apply our exercise results to. Our recreation.

I've recently taken to enjoying walking more and more. Visiting some of the local sights, enjoying the fresh air and freedom. Its cheap, enjoyable and something to apply my degree of fitness to.

This along with Hillfit have spurred a new motto:

"Simply get yourself strong and enjoy your life and all this world has to offer!"

So, I'm getting the most enjoyment out of myself as I possibly can now. I'm enjoying more barefoot activity and planning on getting back into pick-up basketball one evening a week.

Me and my girlfriend have also begun our own hiking and backpacking adventures each weekend and plan on working our way up to bigger and more beautiful locations.

Its also an aim of mine to go for a weekend trek somewhere with nothing but my backpack which I am kitting out with the "10 Essentials"

I'll say it once more

"Simply get yourself strong and enjoy your life and all this world has to offer!"

Stepping in the Right Direction - Resistance Training as the Mode of Choice for Health and Fitness

2012-01-12T05:04:00.000-08:00

I found the following abstract yesterday and was fortunate enough to be able to access the full text through the university libraries online database (sorry can't link it on here).

Uncomplicated resistance training and health-related outcomes: evidence for a public health mandate.

Abstract: Compared to aerobic training (AT), resistance training (RT) has received far less attention as a prescription for general health. However, RT is as effective as AT in lowering risk for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other diseases. There is a clear ability of RT, in contrast to AT, to promote gains, maintenance, or slow loss of skeletal muscle mass/strength. Thus, as an antisarcopenic exercise treatment, RT is of greater benefit than AT; given the aging of our population, this is of primary importance. In our view, a substantial barrier to greater adoption of RT is the incorrectly perceived importance of variables such as external load, intensity, and volume, leading to complex, difficult-to-follow regimes. We propose a more feasible and easier-to-adhere-to paradigm for RT that could affect how RT is viewed and adopted as a prescription for public health.

What first caught my eye was that Stuart Phillips and Richard Winett were authors, in combination with the "Uncomplicated resistance training" part of the title. As we recommend, the evidence supports a very simple approach as being optimal for enhancing strength through resistance training. Richard Winett was one of the authors, along with Ralph Carpinelli and Robert Otto, on this paper critiquing the ACSM's recommendations and offering similar recommendations to ours. Thus, I thought the "uncomplicated resistance training" would be of similar ilk, and I was correct.

What impressed me from this relatively recent paper however were also some of the other issue's raised within it, along with its location of publication.

An important issue raised (and one which has been alluded to by Doug McGuff and John Little in Body by Science as well as being something discussed in great detail by myself and colleagues in a paper currently in review) is the false dichotomy between traditional aerobic training and resistance training. In fact the paper states:

"A central tenet of this review is that the dogmatic dichotomy of RT as being muscle and strength building with little or no value in promoting cardiometabolic health and
aerobic training as endurance promoting and cardioprotective, respectively, largely is
incorrect."

Resistance training can offer the same physiological benefits as traditional aerobic style training, and on top of that optimally improves strength and hypertrophy. This paper along with a recent surge in interest in the intensity of exercise as being key in promoting adaptations I hope signals that the prevailing paradigm is beginning to shift.

The other interesting factor associated with this paper is the journal it is published in, considering the nature of its content.

The journal is Current Sports Medicine Reports and is journal of the ACSM. Because of this I am impressed with both the journal editors and also whoever reviewed this article as in the second section both the 2002 and 2009 ACSM position stands on resistance training are briefly critiqued and papers directly criticising the lack of evidence for the ACSM's recommendations by Carpinelli, Otto and Winett are referenced.

This gives me some hope in my own publications. Too often I am worried by the prevailing dogma's within the sport and exercise industry including what are the many precious beliefs held by organisations. Many of these organisations publications are very widely read however and so having work published in them might be valuable to an author in getting their ideas to the community. Unfortunately it is off putting that many of these organisations have such firmly held dogma's, that are often quite unsupported, and as such it is a worry in sending articles to them for fear that they will not be considered due to their 'unconventional' nature.

By the look of this article it seems that even within these hallowed ivory tower institutions and organisations there are glimmers of hope in the form of unbiased and critically thinking journal editors and reviewers. That cheers me up.

Skill is Task Specific

2012-01-09T02:08:00.000-08:00

A section within our paper published last year discussed the issue of specificity in exercise concluding, as many others have, that skill transference between superficially specific tasks is in fact quite low including that no evidence supports the transference of balance between tasks that are designed to train balance i.e. stability exercise, and other tasks i.e. sports performance.

A relatively recent paper authored by a friend who I attended school with also lends support to that notion.

Influence of dynamic versus static core exercises on performance in field based fitness tests.

Abstract
Minimal evidence supports the claim that core stability training transfers into improved performance and the most effective training method to perform core exercises is still unknown. The purpose of the study was to compare the effects of a 6 week unstable static versus unstable dynamic core training program, on field based fitness tests. A static (n = 6) and dynamic (n = 6) training group performed two 45 min sessions per week for six weeks. Seven performance tests, consisting of three core (plank; double leg lowering; back extensions), one static (standing stork) and three dynamic (overhead medicine ball throw; vertical jump; 20 m sprint), were administered pre- and post training. Between group differences were assessed using a repeated measures MANOVA (P < 0.05). Both training groups improved in each of the core tests (P < 0.05). Neither training group demonstrated improvement in the dynamic field based tests (medicine ball throw, vertical jump height and 20 m sprint) (P > 0.05). Findings indicate that both types of training improved specific measures of core stability but did not transfer into any sport-related skill.

The results of this study support the fact that improvements in skill are task specific. Both the static and dynamic core training groups improved in the core tests, however, neither improved in any of the other tests used.

As always, seperate physical conditioning from skill conditioning.

Can You Over-think?

2011-12-20T09:05:00.000-08:00

I think a lot. This was a status I put on my facebook a while back and I spotted it whilst going over some of the blog posts I plan on working on over the xmas break. I thought it one worth putting here to fill the interlude in more extensive posting.

"I regularly get told I overthink things. Things which seem small and insignificant. The funny thing is that the ones who comment that I have 'overthought' something are usually just identifying that they have not lent the matter any thought. Its not that I overthought it, it's just that I thought about it and they didn't."

Cigarette smoking: an underused tool in high-performance endurance training

2011-12-12T08:57:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to post this quickly because not only do I think it highlights an important point regarding the presentation of science through literature reviews and other modes i.e. systematic reviews and meta analyses, but it's also pretty funny.

Here's a link to The Scholarly Kitchen article

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2011/11/25/butt-of-the-joke-a-review-article-parody-proposes-smoking-for-endurance-athletes/

And here's the full article

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001541/

It's a clear case of how some authors present data on acute variables, or surrogate markers of performance i.e. physiological variables associated with performance, and fail to then provide any evidence for any actual improvement in performance.

Enjoy and hopefully using this new ergogenic aid you too can perhaps improve your marathon or ironman time!!

Busy...but how about a couple of videos from The 21 Convention

2011-11-22T08:32:00.000-08:00

My combined workload (research, reading, writing, and lecturing) at the moment as well as other aspects of my personal and social life, I have deemed to occupy, by my judgement, the majority of my time investment. As such I've spent very little time online, blogging, commenting etc. I've 45 half written posts and ideas for posts in my draft posts section of blogger on things, research etc that have struck my interest and I have deemed it appropriate to put my thoughts on them into written word. These I will get round to at some point. I plan on taking a brief period of time off over the festive season to do a bit of writing (aside from academic) and to spend some time travelling across the south coast with my girlfriend in order to relax and refocus.

However, as both of my talks at The 21 Convention London 2011 are now released I though I would at the very least embed them here for people to view and comment on. I had planned accompanying posts to go with these which I was hoping to use to answer the main questions I see them stimulating. However those posts are in with the other 43 and won't get finished until I see it as a better use of my time than its current use.

Anyway, enjoy and help support the work Anthony does with The 21 Convention by either downloading the audio/video or purchasing hard copies of the DVD's. The range of speakers from both events this past year was phenomenal and I have enjoyed many of the other speakers talks already.

Objectvism - An Introduction to a Philosophy of Reason

Chronic Lower Back Pain - Discussion & Treatment

The Case Against Fluoride

2011-09-18T07:24:00.000-07:00

I have been reading a book called The Case Against Fluoride over the last week on my commute and I must say it has been excellent. As with such things as diet and exercise it seems there are a number of other recommendations made by 'health officials' and organisations that are based more on politics than science. I've employed the precautionary principle to fluoride for some time being that I knew little about it and avoided it were possible i.e. in toothpaste. At the moment in Southampton where I live the water is not fluoridated but that may be changing soon.

All the details on fluoride issue's in Hampshire are kept up to date at Hampshire Against Fluoride which I recommend checking out as well as the Fluoride Action Network.

I'd recommend reading The Case Against Fluoride also. It is to dismantling the science and politics behind fluoridation what Good Calorie, Bad Calorie was to dismantling the Diet/Heart hypothesis in nutrition.

I attended a talk by Paul Connett, co-author of The Case Against Fluoride and Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network, at my University Saturday last week. The talk was excellent and covered most of what is included in the book. I also attended a demonstration outside the Guildhall which resulted in the local council withdrawing any support for fluoridation.

Briefly the main arguments against fluoridation include;

Ethical arguments that it is in violation of the Nuremburg Code in that it is a drug, who's dose cannot be controlled that is being prescribed and given without informed consent.

A lack of scientific evidence for it's effectiveness in combating tooth decay. There was a lack of positive evidence when the recommendations were first made and there still is now.

Evidence of harm from chronic fluoride toxicity including dental fluorosis, brain damage in growing children, endocrine and enzyme inhibition and disruption, bone diseases etc.

My political views being what they are I would have no problem with a private water company wishing to add fluoride to their water. That would be their prerogative and if they did so I would just choose to get my water elsewhere. But despite Southern Water being a private company they are regulated by a government body that is trying to make it a mandatory requirement to fluoridate their water. This is what is insane especially in light of the significant evidence showing it does not work and can cause harm. Presumably with all the best intentions in the world it seems the government is intent on trying to poison people. My biggest problem with this is the sheer idiocy and bad science involved and based on this I find it very hard to believe that this is being put forward with the best intentions.

Is Palatability Subject to Plasticity???

2011-09-09T02:37:00.000-07:00

I wrote the above blog post title after considering Stephan Guyenet's food reward series earlier this month and the subsequent blogosphere excitement surrounding it. After reading Todd Becker's recent post I thought I'd link to it and just put briefly what I thought was a limitation to the theory.

Something that struck me as odd yet relatively un-touched when discussing food reward was the idea of plasticity in palatablity. Indeed that's sort of what Todd's post considers in detail - the relativity of taste.

In pain research, for example, inter-individual response in pain, particularly chronic pain, can be due to the significant plasticity of neurons in response to injury. In general the physical mechanisms that induce nociception are similar yet significantly different responses in pain can be produced. Pain which is a response produced by the brain in response to noci-ceptive input, which itself can be affected by neuronal plasticity and phenotype changes, as well as pain being influenced by psychological factors, is an inherently malleable perception.

I'd expect palatability, something which is presumably produced in the brain after input from PNS receptors and hormones to also be inherently influenced by neuronal plasticity, as well as psychological factors, to also be as malleable. For example, I find liver to be extremely palatable. It tastes damn good. My girlfriend on the other hand does not like liver at all. This does not say much for whether liver has an inherent palatability. Most people are aware that different states can have an effect upon how palatable something is. After a workout I most foods palatability to increase substantially. This is alliesthesia.

I think this is flaw in the theory of food reward/palatability. It's pretty damn hard to define whether a food or diet being used is inherently palatable or not as any sample looked at will presumably be fairly heterogeneous in regard to this variable based upon prior conditioning.

Anyway, just a thought with no time to flesh it out. Back to the next Walking Tall post.

Natural Selection - When Positives Outweigh Negatives

2011-09-05T13:16:00.000-07:00

Chris linked to a recent interview with Daniel Lieberman (whom I am hoping to see present at the UKsem conference in November). In the interview was the following question and answer:

Q. People with bad backs often blame evolution for their pain. They say, “My back aches because man was not meant to walk on two feet.” Are they right?

A. If that were true, natural selection would have its toll and we’d be extinct. What is more likely is that many people sit in chairs all day, get no exercise, and thus have weak backs. We did not evolve to sit in chairs all day.

As much as I agree that we probably have not evolved to sit in chairs all day I just wanted to briefly take the time to point out my issue with the natural selection aspect of this retort as many have suggested against the idea that mans lower back issues stem from an evolutionary consequence of being bipedal.

Over the course of our evolution we have undergone adaptation in our predominant locomotion patterns which has been to a large degree facilitated by anatomical adaptations in our lumbar spine and pelvis. The end result being that we have a relatively long and mobile lumbar spine with very little passive rigidity and relatively small extensor musculature which I and others argue may be directly responsible for the high prevalence of low back pain and disorders across a range of populations. This may also explain the consistent association of deconditioning with both acute and chronic low back pain including some prospective data on it as a risk factor.

Lieberman suggests that if it were the case that low back pain were a consequence of our being bipedal then natural selection would have taken it's toll and we would have died out long ago.

This I believe is incorrect and relies on a number of assumptions:

First, the presence of low back would have had to have an impact upon reproductive success

Second, this would have to have a greater negative impact impact than the positive of being bipedal in our paleolithic environment

In light of the first assumption Lovejoy has argued that many of the low back disorders linked to our evolutionary lineage do not occur until past reproductive age and so would be more likely to persist in the gene pool, however I also would point out the prevalence of LBP in young populations which would then lead us to the second assumption.

If LBP is prevalent in young populations before reproductive age (as young as 10 years) then it must have had little impact upon reproductive success to still be a highly prevalent condition.

If a trait carries both positives and negatives then as long the net effect is a benefit to reproductive success the trait will persist along with it's unintended consequences. So in the case of bipedality it seems likely that the benefit of being able to habitually engage in bipedal locomotion outweighed the relatively benign drawback of a higher risk of developing lower back disorders.

I'm looking forward to hopefully being able to talk with Professor Lieberman regarding this at the conference as it would be interesting to hears his thoughts in more details and to see what he bases his opinion on.

In light of this also I am going to endeavour to next finish my Walking Tall series before any of my other blog drafts.

Minimalist Footwear and the Bloody British Weather

2011-08-29T08:38:00.000-07:00

I love the whole barefoot concept. I had been aware of it for a while, even before reading Born to Run.

From a biomechanical perspective it seems apparent that the foot is designed to operate unshod and typically forefoot strike during running. Here's a great piece discussing it. I am less convinced regarding the 'persistence running' argument for running barefoot as it also argues that we are designed to run long distances which regarding the evidence demonstrating the damage caused by endurance style training, especially marathons and ironman. Personally I feel that considering all the evidence we are more than likely 'born to run barefoot when we run' but not 'born to run per se. Anyway, that's a post along with the many others I have yet had the time to finish. Maybe one day.

On a sidenote I am hopefully attending and presenting at the UKsem conference in November where Professor Dan Lieberman will be a keynote speaker and also
participating in a debate on barefoot running which looks to be very exciting. I recommend attending.

I've had a pair of Vibram Fivefinger KSO's for some time now (about a year and a half). During the summer they were great. I walked in them, ran in them, resistance trained in them, even tried them playing basketball. All in all over the summer I practically lived in them. But then winter came round. As many will know winter in Britain can be a tad wet. The problem was soon apparent after taking a brief trip into town one lunch with the ground wet underfoot. The water absorbed between the toes due to the close contact with the wet ground and before long almost the entire front half of my KSO's were wet. To try and alleviate this as well as the encroaching cold I bought a pair of Bikilla's which had slightly thicker soles. Alas they did no good for preventing the wetness but did prevent a significant amount of heat from seeping through the bottoms as it got colder (they were also great for playing basketball). Still, not ideal for winter in the UK.

So this year I thought about investing in an alternative pair of minimalist shoes. One with a more durable and water resistant upper and less chance of seepage and absorption from underfoot moisture. I considered purchasing a pair of Merrel's at £85. But after umming and ahhing I stumbled across a pair of shoes I actually thought they had stopped making, whilst shopping with my brother.

Addidas Taekwondo's. I had a pair of these when I was 17 and Five Fingers aside they have been my favourite pair of shoes. Not long after wearing them in they begin to feel almost like a sock. The upper is flexible enough that it doesn't restrict your toes splaying as you walk or run and the sole is pretty damn thin compared to most other shoes. In fact it didn't seem much different to the Merrel's except maybe not quite as flexible brand new (though after wearing them in its fine). The price? £29.99. No way was I gonna pay out £85 for a thin soled shoe just to keep my feet dry when I could pay £29.99. Anyway I've begun wearing these on cold or wet days (The summer seems to be ending abruptly already here) and to be honest they are just as I remember them.
I think it's perhaps true that technique, when it comes to walking and running, is likely most important. I vaguely remember Chris MacDougall suggesting in Born to Run that as long as you had thin soles with no cushioning then it didn't really matter. Others argue that barefoot means barefoot and shun all varieties of the shod foot. I would tend to agree on both parts depending on the context. For me the taekwondo's are my everyday shoe, along with my KSO's, and not something that I plan on training in. When I perform resistance training in the gym I have my Bikkila's set aside and also use these for basketball and when barefoot running in the woods (I break from the track often and just go headlong into the dense woodland as I prefer just to run once or twice a month at most for the feeling of freedom and the skill practice. I don't like the idea of landing on a hidden and sharp stick with the sole of my barefoot though). When it comes to just walking around the block or up the park with the dogs though, or running sprints on the grass I like to go eau natural and just be barefoot, feeling the ground beneath my feet and responding to each and every nuance.

So there we are, barefoot isn't expensive, duh ;) - and minimalist shoes needn't be either.

GoodReads.com - Sharing Erudite Adventures

2011-08-18T09:36:00.000-07:00

Hat tip to Ben at Skeptical Empiricism.

I have recently taken to making use of GoodReads.com and would highly recommend it to anyone also venturing on erudite quests to satiate their curious and inquisitive minds.

It is a fantastic resources which works as an online book list providing you with instant book reviews and info, the ability to sort your books into 'read', 'currently reading', 'to read' and any other shelves you wish to add to your profile (In my case 'to buy').

Up until recently I had always kept a list in a word document of the books I had seen that I was curious to read. This had begun to increase at quite a considerable rate and so I had taken to photographing books using my phone in the shop and then adding them when I got home. Not so anymore. GoodReads has a free app for your smart phone which you can download and use it's barcode scanning facility to instantly add a book you've found to your shelves.

I'll put a link to my shelves for anyone who is interested (at the time of writing it is far from complete as I haven't got round to adding everything either 'read' or 'to read'). In fact that is another benefit of the site. You can browse other users shelves to see what others are reading and see if you spot anything you like and may want to add to your own. The rate at which my 'to read' shelf will grow is almost invariably likely to be faster than the rate at which my 'read' shelf does. My 'currently reading' shelf will probably remain the same, as one leaves one will enter. I like having three books on the go as I've said before.

Anyway, I hope you find value in this fantastic website and that you enjoy and value you adventures in obtaining knowledge.

Adventures at the Seashore

2011-08-15T14:50:00.001-07:00

One of the reason's I actually started this blog, a reason which I have yet to utilise it for regularly, was to record my gastronomic escapades. I admit that I am a foodie, and was even more so after deciding to take the time to study the science encompassing the area of diet and nutrition. So without further ado here is my long awaited first post on finding, preparing, cooking and eating food.

Edible Seashore

Last week saw my 23rd birthday, and one of the gifts I received from my truly wonderful girlfriend was a copy of the River Cottage Handbook No. 5 - Edible Seashore. With my primal eating and lifestyle she thought that the idea of foraging, something I occasionally do for berries when the season is right, would fit right in. Well I must say that of all the gifts I received this year, in fact in a long time, I have not found myself quite as excited about anything as this. I immediately brought myself to a point in my current reading endeavour, Thomas Paine's Rights of Man (Something which I plan to blog briefly on hopefully the coming weekend), that would allow me to put it down and make a start with the foraging knowledge contained in the handbook.

I will be honest, my excitement overtook me a little and no sooner had I read the introduction had myself and Emma planned our first trip to Keyhaven on the south coast to forage the pebble beach for edible plants and to catch bucketfuls of prawns with our children's prawn net. Sadly this is not quite what happened.

My children's prawn net proved to not quite be sturdy enough for dredging the bottom and catching prawns quickly before they escaped. I caught about a handful, most of which weren't worth eating. In addition to this and in my overwhelming enthusiasm it wasn't until we arrived at the beach that I realised I hadn't really took the time to consider what plants we were likely to find in this particular location and how common they were. My new multi-tool looked as though it was unlikely to get a test run for cutting fresh sea kale.

In spite of this however we made good use of the day we had, bough ourselves a crab line and some bait and proceeded to catch dinner. Crab fishing, the old British kids seaside pastime. Funny thing is, as the author of the handbook remarks, all the crabs caught by kids are usually thrown back. Well we decided to keep ours and make use of them. The shore crabs caught on a line are generally too small to be worth cooking purely for their meat. The effort of getting into them yields little reward. However, shore crab bisque on the other hand... now a bucketful of shore crabs could be turned into an awesome, nutritious, fresh and tasty dinner.

Ok so not quite a bucketful. The kids next to us seemed to have far more luck. Despite this I was content with my haul and set off home to try out my recipe for shore crab bisque included in the handbook. When home I rinsed the crabs and put them in a bag in the freezer for an hour before boiling them.

Afterwards I roughly chopped them to release most of the meat. Melting a large knob of butter in a large pan I softened a large onion along with garlic and bay leaves, added tomatoes and then the crabs, a glass of white wine and paprika and allspice. After about 5 mins I added a small measure of brandy and ignited it, then, once it had calmed down added about half a litre of the water I boiled the crabs in, covered it and let it cook for about 25 mins. After this I let it cool and then put it through the blender before straining it through a fine sieve.

Here's what the final result was

In a word it was incredible. Who would have thought that something as humble as the shore crab could be turned into such a flavoursome culinary delight. Next time I'll be getting a bigger bucket of crabs as well as ensuring I am prepared to locate some of the seaside's edible vegetation to accompany it.

Acute Responses and Chronic Effects

2011-08-11T01:12:00.000-07:00

A number of recommendations in resistance training are made by authors attempting to extrapolate from an acute mechanism or response to infer a chronic training adaptation. In many cases this inference is independent of any corroborating intervention studies manipulating the variables in question to produce said acute response, then utilising a valid measurement of the inferred chronic effect in attempt to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. This situation predominantly lies within the realm of hormonal and molecular regulation of muscle mass.

I made a comment on a post at Drew's blog a while back highlighting this issue:

"Understanding of the acute processes I think is important to direct further research, for example a lot of recent research looks at measures of acute ‘protein synthesis’ in response to different protocols i.e. high vs low volume, occluded training etc. But they draw the assumption that the higher measure of an acute surrogate marker in one arm of the trial compared to another will necessarily translate into a greater chronic hypertrophic response. When we look at the volume example for instance however and consider the empirical data, the training studies, we see that low volume, single set exercise is just as effective as high volume, multiple set exercise in producing strength increases and hypertrophy."

In addition Chris made a post a while back highlighting this "Black Box" approach to physiology.

The thing is that for a hypothesis to be plausible it requires both a biological plausibility, that is an acute process (and chronic) by which the variable exerts it's hypothesised effect, and empirical data from intervention studies demonstrating it as a chronic adaptation.

In light of this I was pleased to see this concept discussed by Dr Ralph Carpinelli recently with reference to large muscle mass exercise producing a greater acute testosterone response. It seems that although this is an acute occurrence, it does not translate into an enhanced response in hypertrophy or strength.

Here is a link to the full paper.

http://www.medicinasportiva.pl/new/pliki/ms_2011_01_07_Carpinelli.pdf

Evidence Based Resistance Training Recommendations

2011-08-09T04:02:00.001-07:00

Today heralds the day of my first peer reviewed scientific publication. Co-authoured with James Fisher and two of my PhD supervisors Stewart Bruce-Low and Dave Smith, the article represents an evidence based set of resistance training recommendations to replace the psuedo-scientific recommendations of the American College of Sports Medicine.

http://www.medicinasportiva.pl/new/pliki/ms_2011_03_08_Fisher.pdf

If you have any interest in exercise then read, distribute and enjoy!!

My Anti-Library

2011-07-27T13:05:00.000-07:00

In The Black Swan, Nassim Taleb titles part 1 Umberto Eco's Anti Library and explains that the knowledge we hold is of the less value than the knowledge we do not yet hold. A library should be a research tool and a read book is of considerably less value to the inquisitive and critically minded thinker than those that he has yet to read.

I posted listing the books I had acquired over the festive period and planned to read this year. Well my 'Anti-Library' has grown at an exponential rate since then and as fast as I read my books I am always able to accumulate unread one's faster.

So far this year I have read the following (After last time's messing around I am not putting amazon links to any of these).

The Four Hour Body - Tim Ferriss

Lights Out - T.S. Wiley & Brent Formby

The Vitamin D Solution - Michael Hollick

Born to Run - Christopher McDougall

The Virtue of Selfishness - Ayn Rand (Second time)

The Plan: 12 Months to Renew Britain - Douglas Carswell & Daniel Hannan

The Revolution: A Manifesto - Ron Paul

How to Win Friends & Influence People - Dale Carnegie

The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins (Second time, though first time I didn't finish it)

Anime & Philosophy - Joesf Steiff & Tristan Tamplin

Between a Rock and a Hard Place - Aron Ralston

Eisenhorn Trilogy - Dan Abnett

And currently I am reading

Rights of Man - Thomas Paine

Necronomicon - H.P. Lovecraft

Despite clearing 12 books already this year my 'Anti-Library' continues to grow and the books menacingly stare on from my very much overcrowded bookshelf.

This has been in part thanks to my realisation of the wonders to be found in second hand book shops, charity shops and car boot sales. In the past 2 months or so I've picked up the following second hand.

The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown

The Bourne Trilogy - Robert Ludlum

War & Peace - Leo Tolstoy

Focaults Pendulum - Umberto Eco (who's anti-library is considerably larger than mine at 30,000 books)

Down Under - Bill Bryson

Notes from a Small Island - Bill Bryson

A Short History of Nearly Everythin - Bill Bryson

A History of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russell

The Rise & Fall of The Third Chimpanzee - Jared Diamond

Long Way Round - Ewan MacGreagor & Charlie Boorman

My Booky Wook - Russell Brand

Great Mambo Chicken and The Transhuman Condition - Ed Regis

Chaos - James Gleick

The Art of War - Sun-Tzu

PsychoDarwinism - Christopher Baddock

Tongues of Conscience: War & The Scientists Dilema - R.W. Reid

Science & Humanity - F.B. Welbourn

On The Side of Life: The Ethics of The Future - Tomot Om

The last three books were random finds in a second hand bookshop in Winchester. Science & Humanity had it's price on the rear cover in shillings!!

All of these books represent knowledge yet un-obtained and I look forward to reading, critiquing, learning and feeling emotion from books.

Edit 5/08/2011 - Lunchtime I picked up three more books second hand

The Emerging Mind - Vilayanur Ramachandran

Super Crunchers: How Anything Can be Predicted - Ian Ayres

Being & Nothingness - Jean-Paul Sartre

Q&A with Anthony Johnson at The 21 Convention 2011 London

2011-07-20T06:47:00.000-07:00

In addition to my talks at The 21 Convention 2011 London I was honoured to be asked to join Anthony for a Q&A session on the final morning in order to give the attendees the chance to answer any questions they had relating to exercise, nutrition and health. I spent a lot of time discussing these area's with attendees outside of this session over coffee, lunch etc as well which was truly enjoyable as in all cases the questions were genuinely well thought out and they were interested to find out and apply the information I could offer them.

HIT and insufficient recovery.

2011-07-03T12:26:00.000-07:00

Time for PubMed updates of the month and this study piqued my interest.

High-Intensity Resistance Training with Insufficient Recovery Time Between Bouts Induce Atrophy and Alterations in Myosin Heavy Chain Content in Rat Skeletal Muscle.

The conclusion

These data show that high-intensity resistance training with insufficient recovery time between bouts promoted muscle atrophy and a transition from slow-to-fast contractile activity in rat plantaris muscle

Pretty much the relationship between intensity and frequency/volume that Arthur Jones brought to the attention of the resistance training community in the 1970's. Unless you allow recovery to happen supercompensation will never occur and eventually the body will decompensate.

I found it interesting though that the atrophy was predominantly of the slow twitch fiber types (I and IIa) and a transition back towards a more fast twitch profile was noted.

High intensity resistance training actually promotes a fiber phenotype transition from type IIb towards type IIa but I guess insufficient recovery promotes selective atrophy in the opposite direction.

'A' not 'the' Dominant Factor.

2011-06-29T11:09:00.000-07:00

When we face the facts and examine the evidence regarding most pathological states there seems always to be an element of the multi-factorial. A number of different factors can be exerting an influence on a particular system which produces a particular result. Often similar or the same results can be produced from entirely different factors.

Stephan Guyenet at Whole Health Source has written often about the role of food reward in obesity and has recently written a blog post discussing his idea's on preventing and reversing fat gain with this in mind.

What I was liked about this post was the point Stephan made in the beginning:

First, I want to point out that although food reward is important, it's not the only factor. Heritable factors (genetics and epigenetics), developmental factors (uterine environment, childhood diet), lifestyle factors (exercise, sleep, stress) and dietary factors besides reward also play a role. That's why I called this series "a dominant factor in obesity", rather than "the dominant factor in obesity".

The same is absolutely true of chronic low back pain and I always like to make a point of that when discussing it. It is a predominant factor, not the only factor. I do think that some factors are more commonly causative than others however and as such refer to them as predominantly causative. This does not imply that other factors cannot be causative however.

I've discussed before how I don't think that psychological or psychosocial factors are predominant causes of CLBP, but they can certainly be causative factors. The same way that work related, ergonomic, or other environmental factors can have an influence on injury and development of chronicity. At the same time factors influencing neural plasticity and a learned pain response in the brain can be important, as well as neuromuscular control of movement.

Considering the evidence in support of all these things however I am always left dissatisfied as to whether the high rates of prevalence of non-specific CLBP can be explained by them.

In my opinion and in light of the consistent and copious evidence (to clarify that is just a small sample of the research and I don't intend on searching and linking the literally hundreds of papers I have included in my thesis, that can wait until publication of the literature review) demonstrating dysfunction in the lumbar paraspinal musculature in CLBP along with plausibility and temporal relationships indicating the influence it may have on many symptoms i.e. disc degeneration/herniation, facet join pain, instability etc, I believe that a predominant factor in the etiology of CLBP is atrophy, weakness and all in all dysfunction of the lumbar musculature.

With that said the many treatments aimed at addressing the variety of possible causes of CLBP may have merit in some instances. For example people who suffer with affective disorders and CLBP will definitely benefit from cognitive behavioural therapy. Many CLBP sufferers are likely to benefit especially if they are severely chronic as in most cases psychological changes i.e. depression, stress etc manifest after the pain itself. Even postural methods like the Gohkale method are probably useful in attempting to reduce the wear and tear experienced on a day to day basis by poor posture.

So I'm not writing off every method aimed at treating CLBP just because the evidence suggests that lumbar muscle weakness is predominantly causative. But I do think that in the majority of cases of non-specific CLBP, treatment should be aimed at addressing this. This means proper exercise specifically aimed at the muscles in question, not 'core stability' or any other fancy exercises aimed at improving neuromuscular control (the fact is that the neuromuscular control element of these exercises is not what is helping).

In fact touching again on the previous post discussing the idea of sub categorisation for directing treatment, specific exercise for the lumbar extensors produces excellent or good results in the majority of cases regardless of 'diagnosis'

Young People Get Low Back Pain Too?!?!

2011-06-27T07:24:00.000-07:00

When I was asked by Anthony to cover the lower back and low back pain in one of my talks at The 21 Convention one of my first thoughts was whether or not the audience would really be that interested. After meeting and speaking directly with many of the attendees at this year's convention in London, I was pleasantly surprised at how interested many of them were. A number of them had specific questions regarding exercise to help strengthen the lumbar extensors and prevent occurrence of LBP and a number also spoke to me about the back pain they themselves experienced. Most of the attendees were probably aged between 18-30 years old.

The 21 Convention Official Cinematic Trailer

An official trailer for The 21 Convention was released last week including footage from one of my talks (on Objectivism, not my low back talk). I recommend checking it out and not just because it has me in. It's epic to say the least.

A comment was left on Anthony's blog regarding the speakers featured in the trailer and what impact their 'popularity' would have.

Well, I'll briefly comment that it seems more likely to me that Anthony chose not specifically those speakers he wanted in the trailer but more the idea's expressed in their talks that best exemplified each aspect that the convention aims to cover.

What I wanted to do in this post was to respond to the assertion made by MikeG.

"...wont sell tickets, neither will a guy specializing on “low back pain” guys in their early twenties don't have back pain (blahblahblah at whatever counterpoint you have to having a low back specialist speaking)..."

Anecdotal as it is, I'm fairly certain already that this assertion is false by the number of people who informed me they had LBP at the convention and the ages they were. In addition based on the interest noted at the convention it seems that there is some demand for the information.

But more importantly, had MikeG attempted a brief search of the academic literature, say even a google scholar or pubmed search (you can get free access, so no excuse really), it would have brought up enough evidence to show how ridiculous and socially conditioned this concept is.

High prevalence of LBP from ages 10~20 y/o

Here's a small sample of studies showing prevalence of LBP in adolescents and young adults and some associated factors.

To be fair it wouldn't matter whether the prevalence was high or not. Any observation of LBP in these ages would refute MikeG's claim. But interestingly some of these studies found very high prevalence.

Kujala et al. 1992 - 10.3-13.3 y/o - Athlete's and non-athletes had similar LBP prevalence, but duration of training in last 12 months was a risk factor for 12 month prevalence.

Salminen et al. 1992 - 15 y/o - 38 symptomatic and 38 asymptomatic participants selected from population of 1503 (not clear whether this means that there was only 38 with LBP or only 38 participated). Decreased sagittal mobility and trunk muscle strength associated with LBP.

Salminen et al. 1995 - 15 y/o - Follow up from previous study. LBP at baseline and follow up characterised by decreased spinal function i.e mobility and strength. Disc degeneration worse at follow up in the with LBP.

Loboeuf-Yde & Kyvik, 1998 - By age 18 (females) and 20 (males) more than 50% had experienced LBP. 1 year prevalence began at 7% in 12 y/o and reached 56% & 67% by 41 y/o with a steady increase over that period.

Salminen et al. 1999 - 15 y/o with 9 year follow up - 35% reported LBP persistently between 14-23 y/o. Early disc degeneration was predictive of future LBP recurrence.

Kovacs et al. 2003 - 13-15 y/o - Lifetime prevalence of LBP 50.9% (males) and 69.3% (females). Numerous associated factors, though causality can't be inferred. Interesting though is the association of greater frequency of sport participation in light of the first cited study. (Overtraining from high impact activities??)

Brennan et al. 2007 - 20.9 y/o - Overall prevalence of LBP was 32%. Two associated factors were age and time spent engaged in personal training physical activity (again with the overtraining). Participation in sports was the only other factor that approached significance (p=0.068) (potentially high impact). The authors suggest that age (despite a difference of only 1 year between groups) was associated likely due to an increased duration of exposure.

So what to make of this? It seems that LBP is common even in adolescents and young adults. Sorry MikeG you were wrong.

It's interesting also that Salminen's studies indicated decreased trunk strength as associated with LBP, and also a temporal relationship between it (characterised at baseline) and further development of disc degeneration (at follow up in LBP group) suggesting the potential of one being caused (or at least influenced) by the other.

These studies are interesting because although chronic LBP is usually characterised as a degenerative disease and part of the aging process this evidence demonstrates that's not necessarily the case. Age related degeneration will undoubtedly have an impact, however it seems that lumbar spine dysfunction may be the more important factor.

I Don't Believe in Superman - Why no legal document can be rationally defended in contradiction of it's fundamental principles

2011-06-15T14:06:00.000-07:00

Anthony has tackled this already, and I hope I presented the fundamental framework appropriately in my talk on Objectivism at The 21 Convention. The US Constitution is a document presenting a plan for government that is based upon the principles of man's natural rights, rights which are a necessity of his existence and born of his identity, the individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

Any legal document that has no basis in reality, no basis in reason, no basis in objectively defined morality, is indefensible from the outset and any document based in these principles that is interpreted in the absence of these principles constitutes a contradiction.

I take issue with the force of government in all of today's societies. I take issue with it's rules, regulations and enforcement of it's (or whatever mob shouts the loudest) rule by force. I take issue with it's interventionist foreign policies, I take issue with it's welfare systems, I take issue with it's regulation of what should be the free market.

However I'm no politician, legal or economic scholar. I haven't read the relevant legal case studies, or studied the economic statistics.

I haven't read a Superman comic before.

But I don't need to have read one to know in the context of my knowledge and the application of my reason that Superman (and any other fictional characters for that matter) doesn't exist, or that I certainly don't have any evidence for him existing and neither do the people who write about him. I don't need to have studied the specific nature of Superman's supposed origins on whatever planet in whatever galaxy. I don't need to have studied the mechanism by which kryptonite supposedly hinders and destroys him. All I need to know is that the basic premise from which his existence might be argued is false and from that I conclude that in the context of my knowledge I don't believe superman exists.

In the same light I don't need to have studied the specifics of a particular political or economical theory if I understand the basic premise from which it is argued.

The issues I take with the implementation of government in today's societies is one derived from the contradictory philosophies from which it's implementation is argued.

Last week a comment was made in defense of Obamacare as follows:

Obamacare— “may violate the Constitution of Ayn Rand, but they do not violate the Constitution of the United States.”

The Constitution may be possibly interpreted in a way that 'legally' allows such a thing as Obamacare to be implemented. But does this make it morally defensible? Does this interpretation actually meet the original premise of the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence?

I could write on a piece of paper 'I'm allowed to rob you' but that would never make it true. How could I objectively defend the moral implications of such a statement.

The same should be considered with legal interpretations. If it can't be defended objectively at the first hurdle, it's basic premise, then don't waste your time with it.

Maybe the metaphor was a bit stretched but I thought it was amusing.

Epic Bad-assery at The 21 Convention London

2011-06-12T08:43:00.000-07:00

So last week I attended and spoke at The 21 Convention London. Anthony has just posted up summarising the event for all you guys who missed it. Do yourself a favour and attend Orlando or next year.

All in all I spoke three times over the four days of the event covering the topics of Objectivism, CLBP and exercises role in tackling it, as well as taking part in a Q&A session with Anthony covering as best I could the attendees questions on any aspects of exercise and nutrition. All will be available at some point on DVD, The 21 Convention website and Youtube channel, and itunes. When there here I'll post them up and I look forward to any and all feedback or questions anyone has, just contact me through the blog comments.

The 21 Convention London

In a nutshell the event was awesome.

I thoroughly enjoyed it and it exceeded my own expectations. Anthony, whom I had met once before when he visited me in Southampton, put on a fantastic event and should be immensely proud of creating his dream in physical reality. I learnt a great deal from the other speakers at the event and will briefly cover the most interesting points that I noted in the talks I attended. But I want to now just take the time to thank the attendees as well because they are the fuel that makes the event a possibility in reality. Meeting with them all and discussing their interests and ambitions, seeing the drive they all had was almost tangible. All of them where there to improve their own lives in one way or another, to create their ideals in reality, to choose life as a goal and achieve it. Thank you everyone.

My Notes....

Throughout the event I took notes during most speakers talks (The only one's I didn't that I attended was Brad Bransons because I had put my pen down somewhere and couldn't find it, doh, and Sasha's mainly because the content was so funny I forgot to make any). I attended all the talks except for Marcus Oakey's, James Marshall's, Vince Kelvin's, Steve Mayeda's second talk and DJ Fuji's, all of which however I will be catching up with when the videos are available as after seeing the quality from other speakers I don't want to find I am missing out on anything.

Anthony 'Dream' Johnson - Event Architect and founder of The 21 Convention

What is The 21 Convention?

Sleep deprived yet ready as hell to deliver the best 21 Convention yet Anthony took to the stage and set about answering the question above. This years event had a perhaps strange (to the uninformed and unwilling to find out) array of topics. Anthony first highlighted what The 21 Convention isn't and then took the keywords from the banner on the website and used them to formulate his ideal vision of what The 21 Convention is.

His answer to sum up:

A panorama event for life on earth as a man

The perfect lead onto my talk on Objectivism.

One of the most interesting points from Anthony's talk was his explanation of the Ideal-Perfection Dichotomy.

He identified that an Ideal is the best possible in physical reality and implied continual growth to achieve that goal.

He identified Perfection as a platonic (my choice of word) concept which doesn't exist in reality. A state of perfection implies no growth is left, no more forward driven process of improving yourself, achieving life. In essence, perfection=death, perfection is counter to life and it's achievement.

It reminds me of something I said years ago to a friend of mine.

"When you don't believe in perfection, there can only be progression."

I would just add that progression has to be a conscious choice, the choice to achieve life.

Brad Branson

Ok so I didn't take notes but I found the fundamentals of Brad's talk interesting. With reference to the value men place on women, Brad highlighted that most men view women as being more valuable than themselves. To me this is absurd. If a man doesn't hold his life as his highest value he cannot value anything else. Brad pointed out that alot of PUA's attempt to 'recalibrate' (I think that's the word he used) this women/men value difference by devaluing the women. Instead Brad spoke about how you should instead value yourself higher and in turn you'll express that through your actions and body language. You'll come across as a person who values himself highly and in turn you'll attract the women whom express the virtues you desire.

Steve Keychain

Steve's talk was very much in tune with what both Anthony, myself and Brad had fundamentally highlighted - Valuing your life and pursuing it's achievement. Steve talked about purpose, your purpose as life and how you should always aim to improve it's quality.

In addition I picked up an interesting theory from Steve's talk.

Noel Burch's four stages of competence.

Interestingly this was very much in tune with Objectivist epistemology on a simplified scale.

In essence,

Unconscious competence - You cannot know what you don't know.

Conscious incompetence - You are aware of the existence of something but are yet to understand it's identity.

Conscious competence - You have knowledge of something but it takes a
great deal of conscious awareness to maintain and act upon.

Unconscious awareness - I saw this as synonymous with Rand's abstraction from abstractions. The integration of conceptual knowledge into further concepts in order to make retrieval of such knowledge more efficient.

Conceptual competence being the last stage in knowledge obtainment - The retaining of characteristics with the omission of specific measurements.

Steve also spoke about fundamentals alot which was a message I wanted to stress in my own talk.

Dharam

After my second talk was Dharam. He covered a number of topics which the audience wanted to learn about with regards to pick up. One thing covered was 'wingmanship' which I found particularly interesting not being that familiar with the pick up community. Both myself and my friend Sean Toomer who both have long term monogamous girlfriends could see the value in applying this with some of our single friends.

Some other things Dharam mentioned I noted down as I found them both interesting and inspiring.

He spoke about courage and fear, correctly defining courage as being action in spite of the presence of fear, not the absence of it. He noted that fear was a natural response to a variety of situations and that to acknowledge it and act accordingly was what constituted courage.

He also commented on enjoying the process as much as the outcome in your pursuits. This is one of the most important things I think for a healthy psychological state. If you choose life and achieving it's proper state, happiness, then finding happiness in the pursuit of happiness serves to perpetuate and augment the state of happiness you seek.

Dharam finished with making everyone more aware that the pain of a regret is always worse than the pain of rejection. Choose to act to achieve your goals, to acheive life. Don't regret not trying.

Matthew Hussey

Matt's talk on the fundamentals of entrepreneurship was the epitome of how to productively create your own happiness, life and be the ideal individual you can possibly be. To me an entrepreneur is the utmost personification of individualism.

To quote Matt:

"You're the best asset you'll ever have"

The man who lives his own life by his own means and not through others.

A few key points from Matt's talk.

Matt talked about there being no place for arrogance in business. I wanted to ask Matt whether he thought a dichotomy existed between arrogance and confidence and whether he could elaborate, but I didn't get the chance. I think all too often people get arrogant in their pursuits and attempt to dismiss reality. The confident man instead lives in constant awareness of reality and instead is confident because of the knowledge he has regarding it.

Another thing was the phrase 'Just Start' - Reminding me of the 'Just do it' speech by Art Williams. Matt said sometimes you need to just get on with things even when you're not ready to. Perfectionism is often cowardice in disguise. This rings with Anthony's refutation of the concept of perfect. In application this can be difficult even from an Objectivist perspective. Sometime you have to act in the face of incomplete knowledge. Perhaps the only knowledge you have is the probability of an outcome. However action for the rational individual always occurs in the context of some knowledge, and the belief of the success of the action can only be determined by it (not as philosopher William James would like to propose as 'the will to believe' - I've got a blog post in the works dismissing this concept). Therefore even though you may not have complete knowledge you are aware that there may be unintended consequences of acting as such and have the balls to try it anyway even if only to learn.

Moving nicely on from this Matt explained that due to this entrepreneurs should prepare for a high failure rate. To combat this he suggested pursuing several, associated opportunities in order to discover which one will succeed. At the end of the talk I managed to ask Matt whether he though a J-curve phenomenon existed with regards to this i.e. the likely hood of failure was necessarily high when only one opportunity was pursued - increasing the number of opportunities decreased that likely hood of ultimate failure - but increasing it too high (spreading yourself too thin) would serve to further increase the chance of failure. Matt's answer clarified this by suggesting the opportunities you pursue be varied but only within the scope of your interests and time. Choosing numerous opportunities so far away from each other both conceptually, geographically or whatever would likely spell failure on both parts.

Other points included avoidance activity, selling yourself, questioning AND speaking with authority, and real modelling. I'll not go into detail on these as you'll have to wait to see his talk when it comes out.

Steve Mayeda

Dj Fuji was ill when he was due to speak and so his talk was re-arranged and Steve 'El Topo' Mayeda stepped in off the cuff and did an outstanding talk on the process of selling on an emotional level.

For me this was fascinating. All too often I fail to acknowledge that not everyone I deal with is entirely rationally minded and so wont just buy a product or service because it's the best, what they want etc. Sometimes the best way to get the result I want it to act upon the reality that alot of people hold their emotions as their standards of value. So for me Steve's talk added a very valuable tool to my repertoire.

He went through the process of identifying the following:

What does the client want?

Why do they want it?

What would their life look like if they had that?

Letting them know you can do that for them.

This initial process creates a 'no-brainer' scenario for the client before you have even gone into the specifics of the product or service you are offering.

Frederick & Yoram

The tag team presentation of Frederick & Yoram was as far as I am aware new to the convention and an interesting format. Both focused on highlighting the pitfalls they encountered during their time in the PUA community and made some very important fundamental points.

One of the points I found important was their discussion of how society generates 'concepts'(which perhaps are more appropriately termed anti-concepts as 'society' has no mind, there is no collective mind and therefore no collective concepts in the sense of how they are formed) such as the 'inappropriateness' of men projecting the fact of reality that the women they experience invoke an aroused state. This was an important general point as it pertains to a number of different societal constructs including the meta-ethical constructs determined through normative ethics.

Jared 'Psych' Laurence

I was looking forward to Jared's talk alot. Anthony had told me that he was also a PhD candidate in the area of psychology and so was looking forward to the scientific approach to the psychology of 'game.' Jared spoke with a focus upon arousal and sexual escalation, in essence how to understand the psychology of escalating arousal and also how to apply it.

The scientific approach was obvious when Jared starting talking about generating assumptions based upon your current knowledge with a woman and then through action attempt to find out whether your proved right or wrong. Hypothesis generation and experimentation?? I think so. Jared discussed how classical and operant conditioning theories were applicable to the area as well before discussing actual methods of applying the theoretical approaches in practice.

Andy Yosha

Aka. The Duke Nukem of Daygame (dubbed by Anthony). I enjoyed Andy's talk alot, partly because of the geeky command and conquer analogy used (I'm a huge geek aswell), but also because the fundamental idea's he discussed didn't just apply to daygame. As with alot of the talks the ideas were applicable to a lot of different social dynamics.

Anyway what stuck out to me from Andy's talk was his discussion fear and both state-dependent and state-independent beliefs.

In essence the command and conquer reference was with regard to the fear felt in unfamiliar situations or environments. Through a process of repetition and practice we can condition ourselves to either associate a different emotional perception with the situation, or we can acknowledge it and act in spite of it courageously. However, removal from that situation for a period of time results in a deconditioning of that previously conditioned response. Fear is natural and never goes away completely.

The state-dependent and independent beliefs appeared to me to be synonymous with my thoughts on rationalisation and rationality (which are two entirely different things).

State-dependent beliefs are influenced by our emotional state in so much as our emotions are taken as the standard of value and thus of decision making. The process is a rationalisation of that 'belief'/emotion, choosing the most appropriate 'explanation' for it.

State-independent beliefs are influenced by our emotional state sure, but, in the same light as Dharam explained what courage was, they are formulated and held with the emotions being input information into the decision making process. We can choose to either act upon them or against them based upon the sum of all other perceptual and conceptual knowledge we have about the situation. This is rationality.

Wrapping up

To wrap up I'm just going to reiterate that I had a blast at the event and would urge anyone who can attend to do so whether in Orlando or an event next year. If I had the time and money I'd be out to Orlando in a flash.

'Non-Specific' Chronic Low Back Pain

2011-06-09T05:47:00.000-07:00

A quick post really as I don't want to write up much else until I have completed my review post for The 21 Convention London which I attended and spoke at last week.

'Non-specific'???

The statistic that 85% of CLBP is non specific, meaning that no specific cause can be attributed to the presenting symptoms, is often thrown around by researchers and clinicians. In general it has prompted research that has attempted to develop sub categories of CLBP and individualise treatments for them. The problem is that the idea of sub categorisation is not validated. In fact the majority of research has found that the types of functional measured, whilst generally correlating with CLBP as a general condition, usually fail to present any correlation or predictive value when observed in sub categorised participants.

Due to this I found the following paper interesting.

Do primary-care clinicians think that nonspecific low back pain is one condition?

The majority of clinicians from a variety of disciplines are of the opinion that CLBP is a disorder that has many sub categories of causative factors. This being despite the difficulty in providing accurate diagnosis and insufficient evidence to support the use of sub categorisation in directing treatment.

An interesting point to note is that physiotherapists, who are trained to consider CLBP as a sub categorical pathology, a more likely to believe it is. This is perhaps due to a large degree of their role being that of attempting to diagnose. To the contrary, musculoskeletal medicine practitioners (which presumably comprised any sports medicine practitioners and strength and conditioning coaches) as well as GP's were least likely to think it. Personally coming from an background with a predominant focus in exercise physiology I make no attempt to suggest that I am able to perform diagnosis. I can't and am not trained in doing so. Instead however I look to the literature and formulate links between the evidence to produce a concept I think has to strongest support for being a causative factor and then direct treatment towards it all the while considering the RCT's demonstrating the effectiveness of that treatment. Different worlds?

A number of structures are possibly pain causing in the lumbar spine; muscles, discs, ligaments, facet joints, direct nerve damage. In fact it would seem that initial injury or dysfunction is responsible predominantly for the cascade of events that leads to such pain causing mechanisms. As such these mechanisms, although responsible for the experienced symptom of pain, are generally in the majority of cases symptoms themselves of an underlying dysfunction and are dependent upon the severity of injury or dysfunction.

At some stages, and depending on the chronicity of the low back pain, treatments may be better directed at the pain causing structures or the further mechanisms by which pain is experienced (i.e. Spinal and supra-spinal sensitisation). However, and certainly for the majority of sufferers labelled as non-specific, an underlying dysfunction is likely the cause of the subsequent associated factors that should be more appropriately labelled as symptoms as opposed to true sub categories of pathology.

Busy

2011-04-21T03:04:00.000-07:00

The next month or so is going to be balls to the wall busy for me with conferences, presentations and additional research on top of my PhD workload. With that in mind I am going to take a break from any blogging over that period.

I've got so many blogs in the pipeline (some I started writing almost a year ago but never got round to finishing) but not the time to spend doing the reading to finish them. I don't fancy the stress of trying to do the impossible by spreading myself farther than my capacity allows.

Be back when time allows.

Epidemiology Faces It's Limits

2011-04-18T03:51:00.000-07:00

For the next month or so I am working on a piece of research looking at the effects of protective head gear on thermoregulatory responses to cold water immersion (I know, bit random). I'll avoid the full explanation however. Anyway, the research follows an AB/BA crossover design and being that I had not used it before I thought I'd read a little about study design and statistical analysis of the data. I was flicking through an article on SportSci by Will Hopkins and noticed in the references a paper by 'Taubes G.' My ears pricked and I wondered whether this was the same Gary Taubes who wrote Good Calorie, Bad Calorie/Diet Delusion or not. I searched the paper, and sure enough it was. So for those who want an early piece (1995) of Taubes goodness, here's an old article he wrote for Science. Epidemiology faces its limits.

More on Back Pain in Other Cultures - Thailand

2011-04-14T11:59:00.000-07:00

I recently watched a talk by Esther Gokhale as I was asked what my thoughts on her methods were and I was unfamiliar with the concepts. In this post I won’t be discussing her methods but I will be discussing her basic premise on which she bases these methods. In the talk she claimed that low back pain prevalence in the Republic of Chad was 5% and Thailand 7%. They are really, really low rates. I was stunned.

I wrote a blog post discussing low back pain prevalence in some traditional populations last year concluding that rates where high regardless of the population observed. Immediately I thought I had better check out the studies demonstrating these rates. So I did a pubmed and google scholar search to find published evidence on low back pain prevalence in both Chad and Thailand and to see whether there was any weight to Esther’s claims.

I found nothing published on rates of low back pain in chad, but I did find a few studies in Thai populations. I also found several other studies in a variety of different cultures which I’ll address in other posts (though I do need to get round to writing up the next part of Walking Tall).

Low Back Pain Around the World

A review by Volinn lends itself to the theory that low back pain prevalence may be related to western influence or urbanisation as in general it showed high income countries had higher rates than low income countries, and rural populations lower rates than urban. However the review also alludes to the difficulty in comparing epidemiological studies on prevalence due to methodological disparities.

When I say that 5% and 7% are really low rates it’s because they fall below even the lower end of the range for reported prevalence. Walker systematically reviewed the published literature on low back pain between 1966 and 1998. Point prevalence ranged from 12%-33%, 1 year prevalence from 22%-65% and lifetime prevalence from 11%-84%. Inconsistency is probably due to different study designs and reporting of data in the same manner as Volinn suggests, some studies either under or over reporting. However as I highlighted in my previous post, closer inspection of the data in some studies leads to questioning some of the claims made about traditional populations. Such as higher rates in rural aborigines than in an urban Australian population but both low overall. With a little critical thinking we can make some sense of the data and question certain claims, despite the methodological differences that Walker and Volinn highlight.

Thailand

So what does the published evidence really show for rates of low back pain in Thai populations? Well, there are a variety of studies, looking at a variety of entirely different Thai populations, and showing a variety of rates of prevalence.

• Tomita et al. 2010 - Thai and Myanmar seafood factory workers (13.8%-68.2%, see table 2)

• Janwantanakul et al. 2008 – Thai office workers – 12 month prevalence 34%

• Sopajareeya et al. 2009 – Thai nurses – 12 month prevalence 61.5%

• Chaiamnuay et al. 1998 – Rural Thai – Lifetime prevalence 8.2%

• Osaka & Nanakorn, 1995 – Rural Thai – 30 day prevalence 0.7%

Based upon this data we would have to conclude that certainly in Thailand rural village populations there is a far lower rate of low back pain prevalence. Indeed the Chaiamnuay study is pretty convincing as it presumably looks at lifetime prevalence (well it says musculoskeletal pain ever, so presumably this is what they mean). 36.2% of respondents had musculoskeletal pain and 22.7% of these reported back pain (by my calculations that works out as roughly 8% of the total population). So, although low back pain was the most prevalent musculoskeletal condition, only 8% of the total population had ever suffered it.

The differences in methodologies and the type of prevalence recorded between studies in rural and urban settings here certainly make it difficult to compare indefinitely. Lifetime prevalence may be affected by recall bias i.e. people forgetting if they had ever had low back pain. However, Osaka & Nanakorn’s study showed an even lower prevalence over a period of 30 days where participants completed a diary of any illness. 299 (17.7%) of the total participants (1690) were ill during the 30 days, of which only 12 suffered with knee or back pain. That’s 0.7%, and that was knee and back pain so it may be even lower.

Perhaps there are a population in rural Thailand who almost literally never experience low back pain. If that is indeed the case, and these studies do certainly suggest it, they appear to be a black swan in the epidemiology of low back pains prevalence.

Or maybe this black swan is just a case of the ‘Iceberg Fallacy’ as Don at Primal Wisdom has recently written a great post about. In reporting the prevalence of any disease there are things that can cause over-reporting and things that can cause under-reporting. Over-reporting occurs when something is influencing the population to report they have a disease, when they don’t really have it. Such as disability benefit schemes in Western countries. But this is rural Thailand. The majority of people do not utilise the health services available preferring to self treat. Could we really imagine them claiming benefits because of their illness. A clinical diagnosis can be a step towards proving true prevalence. But in the case of low back pain, diagnosis often comes up short with nothing being readily attributable as a cause. The participant either says they have pain or they don’t and we hope they are not lying, but we may not be able to actually identify the exact source. So we can be fairly sure that these figures are not over-reported.

But what about under-reporting? As I said, recall bias may have been a problem in the lifetime prevalence. There may also be a reporting bias. The Chaiamnuay study showed a high response rate, but that’s also assuming that the respondents were accurate. In a population that isn’t keen on seeking help for their illnesses and who would rather self medicate, I don’t imagine they would also want to whine and moan in a questionnaire about their aching back. In another traditional population on the other side of the world this appears to be the case and I’ll discuss this in another post as this one is getting quite long.

So while the data on prevalence in rural Thailand looks very nice, it’s perhaps not as convincing after a second look. Esther seems convinced it’s not under-reporting. For want of not making an Iceberg style logical fallacy, I’ll personally reserve myself from being convinced by this outlier. I’m prepared to be wrong however.

Just before moving on from Thailand though I want to finish with some thoughts on rice farmers. Rice farmers, probably a lot like the water chestnut gatherers in Burkina Faso that Esther describes, spend a lot of time bending in their job. Esther shows a great picture of two women, bending at the hips, maintaining the shape of their lower back. They are in the top pciture. The bottom are some Thai rice farmers. Some of them are bending just as the women from Burkina Faso. Others, not so. I think this picture is great. Esther only shows picture of people in traditional populations who demonstrate good posture. This picture shows both ends of the spectrum in one hit.

But anyway, some research on rice farmers.

Most readers of this blog are probably aware that my opinion is that deconditioning of the lumbar spine musculature is the predominant proximal cause of low back pain.

Note I said the predominant, not the only, and proximal in that I think it is mainly responsible for the other physical and pain causing symptoms of low back pain, for example disc degeneration. In fact Thai elderly have higher reported rates of moderate to severe low back pain (27%) and a high prevalence of disc degeneration and it’s associated conditions.

This study in rice farmers highlights that back extensor endurance was significantly lower in a group of farmers with chronic low back pain when compared with age and sex matched controls. With just the abstract I can’t know for certain whether they actually looked at low back extensor endurance (i.e erectors) or trunk extensor endurance (i.e. glutes and hamstrings) so I’m making an assumption here until I see the full text.

Other Thai urban studies highlighted show similar risk factors as western studies with the most common being working conditions that result in awkward positions for the back and previous injury. All the more likely in a deconditioned lower back.

Perhaps rural Thai do suffer from significant prevalence of low back pain and it’s just under-reported. Perhaps they don’t. Perhaps even the low number of rural Thai suffering with low back pain though can attribute it to the same predominant cause as other populations. Deconditioned lumbar extension musculature.

Who is James Steele II? - On The 21 Convention

2011-04-11T03:47:00.000-07:00

To give people a little more information about who I am, what I do and what I'll be speaking about this year at The 21 Conventions I've written a short bio along with some information about the topics I'll be discussing which Anthony has posted on The21Convention.com.

Who is James Steele II?

Enjoy!

Let me answer you this way..... - Finding Galts Gulch

2011-04-01T09:17:00.000-07:00

I've been asked before, usually after discussions with friends and family regarding my own political views, why, if I have such a problem with the way things are being done, I don't stop what I'm doing and look to run myself and attempt to incorporate the changes myself.

A couple of weeks ago I came across a book in the University library about Libertarianism‎ (the only one in the whole politics and ethics section, I might disappointingly add), that included in it an interview with Ayn Rand. In this interview she was asked a similar question, and I found her answer to put into words, more eloquently than I had previously, what my response to that prior question was.

''Let me answer you this way..... I was interested in politics for only one reason - to reach the day when I would not have to be interested in politics. I wanted to secure a society in which I would be free to pursue my own concerns and goals, knowing that the government would not interfere to wreck them, knowing that my life, my work, my future were not at the mercy of the state or of a dictators whim"

In essence, why should I abandon the goals I choose to sustain my life and my happiness, in order to attempt to instigate a form of government which, to any rational being, should self evidently be the only possible form of which it should take?

Of course I am very outspoken about my thoughts in politics, and I make attempt to express those views when the situation is beneficial to do so, in order to educate those who would choose to listen. In that sense I am making an effort to confer change, by creating awareness in others of a rational form of government. One which fulfills it only proper role.

I won't spend time in this post highlighting what that role should be, and I expect most reading may already be aware. For those unaware, I recommend reading Anthony's supremely excellent essay on the topic, and also the required reading of Ayn Rands The Virtue of Selfishness for an in depth discussion of the ethical underpinning.

In addition to this, another reason that I do not choose to run in the political landscape myself is because others are already fighting on that battlefront. Last year I highlighted the existence of The Capitalist Party. More recently I have become aware that there exists a Libertarian Party here in the United Kingdom, already fighting tooth and nail in the political arena for individual rights and a government which serves to protect those rights.

In a sense this is a war and I do intend to fight. A war for reason. A war for freedom. A war for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, while I fight a small part of it, skirmishing, helping others become aware of its nature, there are others, better positioned, to make an enormous dent in the enemy lines, fighting for all that is good whilst also building a bulwark against all that is evil in this world.

If I hold any hope at all, it is that Ron Paul is elected as the next Chief Administrator of the Federal Union of the United States. A change in the right direction across the pond would, I think, present the example that most need to see in order to convince them that the same change is needed here.

So to end, my focus on politics exists only as long as needs. Only as long as there is a war, for all that is good, to fight. Until Galts Gulch exists, as the world we live in, and we can finally focus our minds on what we truly want to focus them on.

Wise Traditions London, 26th March 2011

2011-03-27T07:16:00.000-07:00

So, I spent the whole day, 9.00am-9.00pm in London yesterday at the Wise Traditions conference being hosted by the Weston A. Price Foundations London Chapter. I must say that I was thoroughly impressed with the standard of the conference. The speakers were some of the best in their fields including,

Kaayla T. Daniel PhD

Dr Natasha Campbell-McBride MD

Barry Groves PhD

Jerry Brunetti

Zoe Harcombe

Dr Malcolm Kendrick MD

Graham Harvey

There was also a wide variety of stalls to view and purchase from; raw milk, cream and butter, grass fed meats, raw goats milk, cheeses, fermented foods including sauerkraut, kimchi, and kefir. The food on the day was also excellent and provided by,

Rude Health

Laverstoke Park Farm

Cultured Probiotics and Seagreens

Seventh Wave

Virtuous Bread

Ford Hall Farm

Hook & Son

A brief review of the talks I attended.

Gut & Psychology/Physiology Syndrome - Dr Natasha Campbell-McBride MD

This was the first talk I attended in the morning. It was fascinating to listen to Dr Campbell-McBride speak as she is an expert on gut health and the role it plays in a wide variety of psychological and physiological pathologies.

Her talk covered areas such as,

The integral role of gut flora and its actions within the body - Gut flora are involved in many processes including protection from environmental pathogens and toxins, the health and integrity of the gut, appropriate digestion and absorption, fat soluble vitamin production, detoxification (as much as 99% of detoxification occurs in the gut before entering the bloodstream), and immune system modulation (in fact it is reasonable to say that the gut plays the greatest role in our bodies immune function. Most allergies would not be such common place if gut flora and integrity was maintained).

What can damage our gut flora - Antibiotics (pretty much wipe them out - not a good thing, in fact most 'requirements' for antibiotics are born from poor gut health.), steroids (this means the pill too), drugs, stress, poor diet, infection, disease, bottle feeding (i.e. soy formula's), old age, pollution, radiation, alcohol, toxins, dental work.

Mother & Baby's gut flora - Within the womb the baby is pretty much sterile, whilst passing through the birth canal the mother vaginal flora (which are determined by her gut flora) are passed onto the baby. Poor gut flora in mum means poor gut flora in the baby.

Damaged gut wall - A damaged gut wall receives little protection from its gut flora. Damage from microbes and toxins can occur to a more drastic degree. Degeneration of the enterocytes causes tight junctions to open (leaky gut) and allows partially digested proteins into the bloodstream which can trigger allergies, and autoimmune response (in fact most autoimmune diseases stem from this). These effects could be immediate or delayed so it is difficult to tell exactly what may be causing such problems.

Cleaning Systems - Water soluble toxins and microbes travel through the gut wall, through the portal vein, and into the liver for detoxification. Fat soluble ones pass through directly to the lymph system and travel to the lungs were they are dealt with. Essentially if either is overwhelmed then neither can deal well with such toxins.

Lungs & Asthma - Toxins dealt with by the lungs are removed via the phagocytes and mucociliary escalator. They also however release toxic gases. The damage caused by both of these is dealt with by a bronchospasm. Essentially the bronchus is clamped down in order to repair the damaged area. This is essentially an asthma attack, and in the 19th century asthma was considered a benign illness. Now we have people dying from it. Anti asthma medications inhibit this bronchospasm in order to relieve the discomfort. The result being however that the damaged area is never repaired. After several attacks so much of the lungs are damaged that another attach can be fatal. So, anti asthma medications cause benign asthma attacks to turn into deadly asthma attacks.

Gut & Physiology - A huge variety of physiological disorders are implicated with impaired gut health including asthma, skin problems, cystitis, thrush, bed wetting, autoimmunity (through molecular mimicry and also attachment of foreign bodies to proteins or fats ) including, type 1 diabetes, celiacs, MS, and autism.

Blood-Brain barrier - Zonulin, a protein that controls the tight junctions between the enterocytes of the gut plays the same role in maintenance of the blood-brain barrier. In fact a leaky gut almost always means a leaky brain too. This can result in things getting into the brain that shouldn't and can cause untold damage impairing brain function. This is the implication of gut health in numerous psychological pathologies.

Child & Adult - Children with GAPS suffer from autism, ADHD/ADD, dyslexia, dsypraxia, and other psychological problems that cause social difficulty for them. After becoming adults this can develop further and become substance abuse, depression (impairment in the brain from toxins can inhibit neurotransmitter production and recognition like serotonin and dopamine), OCD, manic depressive, eating disorders and schizophrenia.

Addictive behaviour and GAPS - Pathogenic bacteria metabolise refined carbohydrates and produce opiate like substances which facilitate addictive responses and cravings.

GAPS protocol - Introduction involves a low fibre approach to allow gut healing and incorporates fermented foods and foods that aid detoxification. Detoxifying baths are also useful i.e. epsom salts, cider vinegar, bicarbonate of soda. The rest of the diet is very in line with the Weston A. Price Foundations approach including a high amount of healthy animal fats and low carbohydrates.

After her talk I went straight to the book stand and bought her book. I know many people with various psychological disorders, in combination with many of the physiological disorders also implicated, and who have shocking diets. This book will hopefully prove useful in getting them to make the necessary changes in diet and lifestyle for their own minds sake.

Food as Medicine & The Holistic Treatment of Cancer - Jerry Brunetti

This talk by Jerry Brunetti of Agri-Dynamics was very inspirational. Jerry was diagnosed with terminal cancer and given 6 months to live 12 years prior. He turned his back on the option of chemotherapy which would only prolong his suffering and looked to dietary changes in order to help treat his condition. Well 12 years later he's still here and cancer free. His talk involved some of the changes he made and the research supporting them in the combat of cancer. The style of presentation was very fast paced with not a lot of time for me to make many notes. Jerry flicked through rather quick and barely paused for breath. So instead of struggling to get everything down I sat back, enjoyed and just noted down a few interesting points.

Jerry mentioned the effect of methyl group nutrients in epigenetics and how they can methylate DNA

How the drug Metformin activates adenosine monophosphate activtaes protein kinase (AMPK) down regulating glucose production and up regulating fatty acid oxidation. His discussion of this stemmed from discussion of the role of hyperglycemia, cancer cell glucose metabolism and their number of insulin receptor sites. I found this interesting because AMPK responds to a drop in the ATP/AMP ratio within the cell. This is most easily caused through exercise of a very high intensity.

Lastly Jerry discussed the role of Vitamin C in combating cancer. IV vit C uptake in cancer cells is facilitated by their greater number of GLUT4 receptors. Once transported inside the cancer cell vit C is used in a reaction to form hydrogen peroxide which essentially oxides the cancer cell. So the anti-oxidant vit c can be turned round to be pro-oxidant to cancer cells, neat eh?

Eat Fat, Get Thin, Defeat Diabetes - Barry Groves PhD

I was looking forward to Barry's talk a lot. Chris posted a video of him a while ago which I enjoyed and since then had looked forward to hearing him again. Barry discussed the role of 'healthy eating' as it is commonly recommended in obesity and diabetes. Essentially how 'healthy eating' is not healthy. I was aware of a lot of what he discussed, however a couple of little gems of information were highlighted that I was not aware of.

The classification of calorific value of fats, carbs and proteins are not 9, 4, and 4. These are actually rounded figures. In addition protein, which is actually 5.25 calories is already rounded down in order to take into account its greater thermic effect through digestion. So the guys who claim that protein takes more calories to digest are right, except that's already been considered. Invoking it again to suggest that eating protein will result in greater weight loss based upon a caloriesin/calories out model is just plain stupid.

In addition the stupidity of the calorie counting paradigm is further confounded when the specific structure of particular macronutrients are considered. Here's an example, Sucrose is C12H22O11 and is made up of a molecule of glucose, C6H12O6, and fructose, C6H12O6. But when you look at the number of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, the sums don't add up. After digesting sucrose we are left with a greater mass of individual carbs than when we started. This is because of the addition of water in order to break the bonds H2O - hydrolysis. Its the basic conservation of energy and mass. However it does cause a problem for counting calories because the caloric content of sucrose is different to the combination of a single molecule of glucose, plus, a single molecule of fructose.

Also if we consider the caloric content of fats, the specific fats are important. Polyunsaturated fats have around 9.2kcals win comparison to the 5.5kcals of saturated animal fat.

Barry also covered the role of trans fats in altering the structure of cell membranes and contributing to insulin resistance, the requirement of cholesterol, fat, vit D and calcium in beta cell production of insulin, fructose in liver insulin resistance/impaired whole body insulin sensitivity, and an interesting study looking at how the amount of antioxidants in a food is largely irrelevant as some are far more absorbable than others, the best on being coffee.

I managed to pick up a signed copy of Barry's book Trick or Treat and had a brief chat with him at his stand. He also recommended a quality beef called Japanese Wagyu which is very high in fat content and has a glorious marbled look. The quality is considered so high that it comes in at a cost of £130/kg!!!!

It's not (just) what you eat, its how you eat it - Dr Malcolm Kendrick MD

Dr Kendricks talk was hilarious, he is a great speaker and very amusing, serving up various anecdotes and even walking into a wall before walking out one door in the room to come in through another one in order to analogise a point he was making. Dr Kendrick covered various topics he discusses in his book The Great Cholesterol Con.

The role of endothelial damage in atherosclerosis - Damage to the endothelium stimulates thrombosis and subsequent reaffirmation of the of the endothelial layer after damage has been repaired. When damage occurs to frequently this can result in a massive thrombus causing occluded blood flow.

Chilling out and eating well - Dr Kendrick discussed the competing effect of various stress hormones and those involved with digestion and metabolism. He argued that in most cases we examine metabolic processes in a vacuum (i.e. after a period of fasting, when in real life we have various other factors impacting on our metabolic processes in addition to the hormonal effects of the food we eat). He presented a hypothesis after observing the French and their eating habits, suggesting that laid back eating allows a more optimal environment for our food simulated hormones to act, whereas when eating under stress there is a 'hormonal battleground' in which hormones compete to act. He suggests that this may have some implication in the observed differences between the French and other countries rates of cardiovascular disease. He further suggests more research should focus on attempting to examine the processes at work during 'real life' eating situations.

Dr Kendrick highlighted a paper also on challenging the conventional views in science, something which I think will be useful in attempting to publish many of the paper I am currently working on.

Empowering Fertility - Kaayla Daniel PhD

I was very interested in this talk, mostly because of the outline talking of aphrodisiacs as well ; )

I was not surprised at some of the statistics of women with infertility problems. They were however very disturbing.

Xenoestrogens - Soy was implicated in much detail in fertility problems, mainly due to the phytoestrogens within them. In addition the pill and viagra were also explained to cause such problems.

The usual suspects - Fructose/sugar, transfats, pesticides, toxins, isoflavones in soy and flax,.

Endometriosis - Interesting, endometriosis is thought to be caused by estrogenic substances. I found this interesting because I was under the impression that many women who suffer from it took the pill as a way of combating its symptoms (excessive flow). Much like the asthma example it seems that its another case of the cure causing the problem.

The rest of the talk was imbued with inuendo's and funny comments galore. I guess I see why she's called the Naughty Nutritionist.

"The only thing aphrodisiac about vegetable is their inspiring shapes" and "Mountain Biking bad for scrotum"

There were also various links to previously touched upon topics such as GAPS and the benefits of fat to fertility.

In Ending

I must add that the highlight of the conference was probably during the talk by Malcolm Kendrick. I sat in the rear row. There weren't many seats left as the room was packed, but there was one left next to me. A couple of minutes into the talk Barry Groves slipped in and made his way to the back, sitting down in the chair right next to me. I was literally rubbing shoulders with Barry Groves. On my other side sat my friend Andy and not until the end of the talk did we realise that Kaayla Daniel was sat next to him. Flanked by two great scientists whilst listening to another speak - Winning!

In addition to both Barry Groves and Natsha Campbell-McBrides books, I bought The Case Against Fluoride by Paul Connett, James Beck and H. Spedding Micklem.

All in all it was a long, but very worthwhile day.

High Intensity vs Low Intensity Lumbar Extension Resistance Exercise in CLBP

2011-03-17T11:10:00.001-07:00

As promised here is my analysis of the first study in the Lumbar Extension Training in Low Back Pain Management document I pointed out. I won't be commenting on the first section which includes a literature review discussing the etiology, epidemiology, and impact of CLBP, as well as a brief discussion of passive modality treatments and a more comprehensive review of exercise, deconditioning and isolated lumbar extension resistance training in CLBP. This section covers and interprets much of the literature in the area and although there are some papers that they have not commented on they do not misinterpret what they do.

The first chapter I'll discuss then is the second.

Comparison of a high-intensity and low-intensity lumbar extensor training program as minimal intervention treatment in low back pain: a randomized trial.

This study has been published and is available as an independent pdf also.

After reading this study I was immediately led to think that most people, who more than likely only read the abstract were going to be left thinking the following.

"It can be concluded that high-intensity training of the isolated back extensors was not superior to a nonprogressive, low-intensity variant in restoring back function in nonspecific(chronic) low back pain."

They might be right, but closer inspection of the results section along with some consideration of their methods yields a potentially different conclusion. Obviously you'd have to read the whole paper to find that out though. Shame that abstracts are limited in what can fit in them.

Table 2 shows the differences between both the HIT and LIT groups for all outcome measures at both 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9 months. Isn't it interesting that in every measure and every time point except two (TSK at 2 & 9 months and SF-36 at 9 months) the HIT group had a more favourable mean outcome?

Now, nearly all of these were non significant, however at 3 months there was a tendency toward significance in the improvement in the HIT group for self assessed decrease in back complaints (p=0.08). The 9 month measure only reached p=0.11. Apparently that does not 'approach significance'. In the eyes of the researchers the difference between 92% likelihood that the difference was not due to chance vs 89% likelihood that the difference was not due to chance is not clinically relevant enough to mention.

As Dr Harris commented in his recent post at Psychology Today

"Sidebar: Does anyone else think it's strange that if your doctor said "you have a 92% chance you are disease free" you would find that reassuring, but we are supposed to dismiss a mere 92% probability that a study result is real? Stop doing what you are told and read the statistics without letting the authors or editors tell you what is "significant". Yes, P = .00001 is better than .05. But you can decide for yourself, it is not written in stone."
The same goes for the comparison of 92% vs 89%. That's a small difference in chance in real terms. Neither are significant in terms of the arbitrarily chosen level of significant chosen in this type of research. Heck, in some medical research the significance is sometimes accepted at a significantly lower level, just in case a drug might work. They sometimes use as low as 62% (i.e. p=0.32)!!
So I'll go out on a limb, and say that a 3% difference in the likely hood that the observed improvement was down to chance is probably not clinically significant and that both results are probably 'approaching significance'.

Add to this the fact that the trend in improvement nearly always leaned toward the HIT group, and that only the HIT group made a significant objective functional improvement i.e. strength.

It makes you wonder whether the study just wasn't sensitive enough to pick up the significant difference that may have actually been there. Who knows?

What about the LIT group though? They still made improvements in all measures.

Reading through the methods the authors mention the following.

"The two intervention programs were presented to the participants as potentially equally effective for the lower back..."

When you tell someone that something is effective, they tend to believe so and generally show improvements. It's called the placebo effect. The participants in this study expected to improve because of the treatment. And so they all did, HIT and LIT, in subjective and self assessed measures.

The authors commented that because they did not include a waiting list group they could not be certain that there was any interaction of this kind of effect on results.

"Despite the lack of differences in outcomes, both groups did improve over time. Mainly for practical reasons and reasons of study power, we chose not to divide the total study population into three groups by including a waiting-list group. Consequently, we are not able to judge whether possible placebo, learning, novelty or Hawthorne effects might have led to an overestimation of the posttreatment improvements found."

A placebo type effect is more likely to influence subjective measures i.e. all the questionnaires used in this study.

It's unlikely to have a massive effect upon something like strength. The HIT group significantly improved strength as would be expected based upon their intervention. However the LIT group also improved in strength slightly over the intervention period.

Some participants in both groups performed lumbar extension training during the follow up, however the authors do not comment on the protocol they followed (HIT or LIT), so the change during the follow up period is less easy to attribute to something in particular.

The LIT groups protocol was probably unlikely to stimulate any real muscular strength adaptations.

Edit: It should also be noted that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to control for placebo effects in trials conducting physical training. In an old post I highlighted an article by Dvir which is worth checking out for a discussion of this. In the current artcile it could be argued that the LIT group was a placebo group in itself. Often in studies examining Physiotherapy a so called 'sham therapy' is used, i.e. a therpay which is know not to produce the desired effect. The same could be said of the LIT group here.

I would be more inclined to attribute their strength increases to a reduction in kinesophobia. In fact in addition to telling participants that both treatments were effective, the authors went one step further and confounded the results by telling the participants that each treatment targeted different aspects of lower back function

"...targeting different aspects: strength in the HIT group versus mobility in the LIT group."

I suppose it is not surprising that the LIT group made some improvements in strength as well as a greater improvement in TSK scores. They were told their treatment was better for movement!!

Concluding thoughts

This study found no significant differences in any outcome measures between HIT and LIT except for strength (HIT significantly greater at all time points) and kinesophobia (LIT significantly lower at 2 and 9 months).

However, there are numerous confounders including potential placebo effects especially due to the information provided to the participants specific to their group.

I am inclined to think that although the results do not significantly demonstrate it in this study, the trend toward greater improvements in the HIT group for subjective and self assessed measures may be clearly identified were a more well controlled study performed i.e. waiting list controlled study and information was restricted regarding the effectiveness of treatments so as to reduce placebo effects.

Abhorrent Gait Without Pain in Previous LBP Sufferers

2011-03-08T02:40:00.000-08:00

Its that time of the month for me to receive My NCBI updates and another interesting study has popped up regarding back pain and abhorrent gait patterns.

I will cover the role that the lower back plays in human walking gait in more detail discussing the research in a later part of my Walking Tall series of posts. For now however I'll just say that it does play an important role and that people with LBP tend to have abhorrent walking gait patterns especially with respect to frontal plane control. My thoughts on this are with regard to poor muscular control of the lower back during gait. I think the evidence supports that this is predominantly due to atrophy/deconditioning of the musculature involved.

Influence of Low Back Pain Status on pelvis-trunk coordination during walking and running.

The thing that jumped out at me from this study is with regard to the findings that even those with no actual pain symptoms, but who had a history of LBP, still produced abhorrent walking gait patterns.

RESULTS: During walking, the LBP group spent more of the gait cycle in-phase in the frontal plane (p = 0.030). During running, the LBP group showed greater pelvis axial rotation than the control group (p = 0.014) and spent more of the gait cycle in-phase in the transverse plane (p = 0.019). Also during running, the LBP (p = 0.035) and the resolved LBP (p = 0.037) groups demonstrated reduced anti-phase coordination compared to controls.
CONCLUSIONS: Coordination analysis demonstrates a reduction in relative motion between the pelvis and trunk despite low disability levels in our LBP group and no pain in our group with a history of LBP.

Significant difference in control of frontal plane movements were found between the LBP group and controls which corresponds with most other studies findings.

Most interesting however is that even without pain, the conclusions suggest that those with a history of LBP still produced abhorrent patterns. This suggests to me that it is not the pain per se but may be something else that is perhaps associated with LBP, something that may not automatically resolve itself after pain has gone.

Ringing any bells yet?

Recall that I highlighted a study earlier in the year when discussing acute back pain that showed that although pain symptoms in acute back pain tend to resolve themselves regardless of intervention, muscle recovery does not.

If the musculature play such an important role in gait then it is safe to assume that any dysfunction may result in affecting the gait pattern.

So although this study does not explicitly demonstrate that it is dysfunction in the musculature that causes abhorrent gait, it does suggest that the pain itself is not the predominant factor.

You call this ethics? Quite frankly I am disgusted!

2011-03-04T14:40:00.001-08:00

I had a session today for my Post Graduate Certificate in Research Methods (a unit which is part of my PhD) which covered ethics in research. It was run by a professor of law at my university and apparently covered the 'philosophy of ethics.' I made clear from the beginning of the session the influence of Objectivism and Ayn Rands work by asserting that before we can determine the application of what is ethical in a research context, or in any context, we must first begin with a basic moral premise that is rationally defined.

"The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man."
Again I would recommend reading Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness
Or to quote Anthony Dream Johnson
"The rights of man are not a matter of practically – they are a matter of reality. Their existence cannot be argued against any sooner than the inherent ability to argue can be argued against."

The session went spiralling downward toward whatever hell may exist, if there is one, after the statement from the professor

"there are no value judgements, and no right or wrong answer in ethics"

I refrained from pointing out the inherent moral cowardice in such a comment. I was afraid that the application of reason any further to their discussion of ethics might cause their heads to literally explode where they able to grasp to implications.

Either that or I would have exploded with pure anger and disgust.

The rest of the session was fraught with collectivist, mob rule, subjective opinion regarding what is ethical and, quite frankly, absurd ideas of inherent morality as being god given. Some even went as far as suggesting that people had to reason in order to act upon these 'god given' morals, to which I pointed out that it was contradictory to presume to apply reason to a concept based in faith.

The final straw was a comment on the sentence "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The professor acknowledged these as being unalienable rights.

Though I cannot fathom how she managed that without a basic moral premise from which to reason this - oh wait, I remember now, apparently they were 'god given' - Clever her, managing to avoid applying any reason to her concept of what is moral.

She then went on to comment that this extends to following law

'because it is right to do so even if you do not agree with the law.'

So liberty is an unalienable right and it would be immoral to infringe upon someones right to liberty, but she accepts that because it is 'law' and written upon a piece of paper the government is allowed to rob people.

I wanted to ask her if she even existed in this reality, but it got to the point where her gray suit became a potent metaphor for the moral grayness which she promoted.

As an assignment for this unit and according to the professor, I have to discuss ethical theories in order to establish a code of ethics meta-ethically and in consideration of normative ethics (read collectivist whim of the moment AKA mob rule) which might then be applied to my research.

I look forward to asserting a rational code of ethics in this essay from the beginning and then promptly and justly ripping apart the anti-concept of 'normative ethics' before looking to its application in my research.

I wonder whether they she will have marked an assignment like it before. I plan on making the essay available on this blog once written for everyone to enjoy.

A Weighty Tome - Lumbar Extension Training in Low Back Pain Management

2011-03-02T09:08:00.000-08:00

I have the full text for the paper examining the FRT test that I discussed the other day. It was kindly provided by a friend. However after searching I found that the full text wasn't available online yet. I did find this rather large document however.

Lumbar Extension Training in Low Back Pain Management

Its a collection of studies conducted by the same Danish research group and does include the results from the FRT study. There are several chapters reporting and discussing results from the studies they have been performing.

I am going to plough my way through it and in the process will attempt to blog about the sections I feel are important. I'll limit myself to reading one chapter each week and just blog about that one chapter should I find the time to sit and do so.

Car Insurance - Men Vs. Women - Is it discrimination?

2011-03-01T10:10:00.000-08:00

The big thing in the news today was that a European Court has ruled that it is illegal for insurance companies to price based upon gender. Most companies charge higher premiums to men. The courts condemn it as discrimination, despite statistics showing that men do indeed have more crashes and make more claims than women.

In this brief post I want to pick apart the two parts of this argument.

First - Is there really any rational basis for offering different premiums to men and women just because of gender?

Second - Should insurance companies be regulated and it made illegal for them to indeed discriminate based upon this should they wish to?

First

Lets say that men have more crashes/claims than women. That might be true. So if you're a man you are more likely to crash? Statistically it would look like it. But lets apply our science heads for a moment.

I'll say it slowly so that any of the retards at the insurance companies who think they understand these relationships can get it.

THIS

IS

AN

OBSERVATION

And what do we know about observations? They can't imply cause and effect. Because that's what is happening here. Insurance companies argue that men have more crashes than women, ergo they argue being a man causes more crashes. WTF!!!

I am fairly certain that there are numerous factors, many applicable to men and women that would increase the risk of a crash. Perhaps there may be some physiological or psychological mechanisms that apply solely to men or women that alter their risk.

But aren't we supposed to live in a free society?

What about Innocent until proven guilty?

Surely this applies here also? I mean if you took a man and a women and had no other knowledge about except for gender do you honestly think you could make an informed rational choice about who would be likely to crash their car more often? Or who would be more likely to commit murder? Of course you couldn't. If a man or women makes a claim/crash and this is known then that counts against them. But just because of their gender, before anything else is considered, don't be stupid.

So there isn't really any rational basis for insurance companies discriminating against gender when charging premiums.

So should it be illegal to do so?

Second

Hell No!!!

As I said I don't think there is any rational basis for discriminating against gender in this case.

But there is an inherent contradiction in discriminating against a business owners right to run his business freely as he wishes in order to avoid discrimination.

I've argued for a free market for the NHS and consequently I think that it is only right and in accordance with every mans individual right that each and every market sector is run as a free market.

This includes insurance.

So if an insurance company wishes to charge men higher premiums than women, so be it. If another wants to do the opposite, so be it. If one company realises that there is no rational basis for charging different premiums based upon gender and so chooses to hold premiums constant based on this and only affected by other variables (previous claims history, car, where it is kept etc.), so be it.

No one has the right to tell the insurance company what and how it charges its premiums. If the three companies in the above scenario existed and it were a free market then people would choose those they favoured over those they did not. Men might go to the cheaper insurer, women might go to the cheaper insurer, men and women might go to the insurer who does not discriminate. Its their choice, and it is the companies choice as to how it runs itself.

This would probably be less of an issue if car insurance were not a legal requirement, if you weren't forced to purchase it at the barrel of a gun in order to drive your car.

Some might argue in this case that because they have to buy car insurance as a legal requirement that they should not be discriminated when they do so. But do these people not also see that they are being discriminated against by being forced to do so? That their freedom is being infringed upon, at the barrel of a gun, by them being forced to purchase a product they may not wish to purchase?

Sure car insurance is a good idea in my opinion. The same way I think health insurance is a good idea to cover unforseen circumstances. But some people might not agree and might not wish to purchase it to cover themselves.

But what if they have an accident and its their fault? Well, in a freely competitive insurance market companies should be able to afford to cover incidents in which the driver is not at fault. Your insurance policy should cover your vehicle and regardless of who caused the incident your insurance company should pay out.

But what about the guy who was un-insured? Does he get let off the hook? Of course not. The idiot who didn't get insured now has an expensive repair to make, or maybe even a car to scrap and a new one to buy which in all likelihood would be significantly more expensive than the measly insurance premiums he would have paid in a freely competitive insurance market.

Sigh.

I just don't understand how people fail to acknowledge a basic premise, let alone be consistent in their application of it to their arguments.

Walking Tall Part 2 - Evolutionary Changes in the Structure of the Lumbar Spine and Pelvis

2011-03-01T01:21:00.000-08:00

Edit: I was apprehensive at first when deciding to publish this post. After diving into the anthropological studies I began to see myself drifting away from shore without a lifejacket. This was territory that I was unfamiliar with and had no training in it's interpretation.
But I decided to continue anyway and try to make sense of it, learning as I went by. I decided it was an interesting topic and I had the conviction to try to understand it to the best of my ability.
I may be wrong on a number of levels here. But this is my understanding of the topic as it stands and I will continue to analyse the data in order to connect the dots with the plight that lower back pain causes.
As such, any and all feedback is warmly welcomed as I look to refine my understanding.

The main changes that occurred in the lumbar spine throughout Anthropoid evolution that are of importance in this discussion are:-

· Change in structure and number of vertebrae
· Change in pelvic structure

These changes correspond to the evolving gait patterns I described in my previous post. This post is aimed at describing these changes and how they were associated with the gradual emergence of bipedality previously discussed.

Vertebrae

Vertebral number and structure are important with regard to the mobility in the lumbar spine. These changes subsequently accommodated the locomotive patterns described.

Let’s follow the same order as my previous post. As I mentioned before, extant OWM’s are generally anatomically similar to early Miocene apes. As such observing OWM locomotion patterns is useful in understanding early Miocene ape patterns. They also provide us with a good model for understanding early Miocene ape morphology and function which can then be confirmed by looking at fossils.

Number of Vertebrae (Length of lumbar spine)

OWM’s have between six and seven lumbar vertebrae almost all of which are extremely mobile. The mobility of the lumbar vertebrae is essential in arboreal quadruped locomotion as spinal flexion and extension play a big role.

As I previously highlighted, Proconsul has been modelled primarily as an arboreal quadruped with a locomotive pattern similar to extant OWM’s.

I also mentioned that Morotopithecus’ exact phylogenetic position has been debated yet it appears consistently more derived than Proconsulids and less derived than both Oreopithecus and Dryopithecus.
In my self-educated opinion (which may be completely incorrect), this is an important consideration, as the interesting trait apparent in Morotopithecus to subsequently set the scene for biped emergence is within the lumbar vertebrae. As such I am treating Proconsul as the more primitive form due to this and also that Morotopithecus’ dating does not necessarily put it before Proconsulids when some more liberal extended dates for Proconsulids are used (24-14 MYA).

Proconsul had 6 lumbar vertebrae, though I have also heard of specimens demonstrating 7. This is similar to OWM’s and supports the conclusion that locomotive patterns were similar as both spines were long and flexible. Indeed Ward and colleagues suggested that Proconsul nyanzae may represent the primitive catarrhine condition. Another middle Miocene ape, Nacholapithecus also shares this number of vertebrae and resembles Proconsul.

Morotopithecus has contrastingly been reconstructed as a predominantly suspensory arboreal species with a short stiff back much the same as extant apes.

I find Morotopithecus’ short back rather important. I did comment in my last post about larger Dryopithecines exhibiting terrestrial quadrupedalism and suspension, to invoke the possibility that our last common ancestor probably shared these traits. However it now seems that suspensory activity is just as important a factor along with the short back required for such locomotion. The assumption of a short back in our LCA has been questioned. However in light of Morotopithecus being presumably primitive to both Dryopithecus and Oreopithecus I am inclined to conclude that our LCA probably did have a short and stiff lumbar spine.
Indeed Dryopithcines and similar species are presumably ancestral to extant great apes, whilst Oreopithecus may be ancestral to hominini (though it may just present convergent traits). Thus the combination of a short stiff back as well as vertebral structure that could accommodate further specialisation to bipedality leads me to conclude that Morotopithecus may indeed be our last common ancestor with the great apes.

Morotopithecus and Dryopithecus had short, stiff lumbar spines much like extant great apes and were adapted to arboreal suspensory activities. Morotopithecus may not have exhibited traits such as knuckle walking, which may be a further specialisation in Dryopithecus and extant great apes. The loss in vertebral number in later Miocene apes may was thought to be predominantly due to selection pressure that no longer permitted them as 'above branch quadrupeds' (mostly due to increase in size) and thus developed 'bridging' whereby the four limbs were specialised for grasping and the body formed a rigid stable surface and/or became terrestrial quadrupeds.

Oreopithecus had 5 lumbar vertebrae. It is generally accepted that early hominids (Australopithecus, Homo erectus) possessed a long lumbar spine with 6 vertebrae. However the presence of the 6th vertebrae has been questioned. A small perecentage (5%) of modern humans possess 6 lumbar vertebrae and I think it likely that this polymorphism (presence of 2 or more phenotypes) was probably present in early hominids also. The extension in length of the lumbar spine and reaffirmation of its mobility was essential to the emergence of habitual bipedality.

Structure of Lumbar Vertebrae

If we are to presume, as I have done, that Proconsul is primitive to Morotopithecus, which in turn is likely primitive to both Dryopithecus and Oreopithecus, then based upon the changes observed in locomotion and lumbar spine length between these species we might also expects changes in structure.

The structure of Proconsul’s lumbar vertebrae has been said to be similar to gibbons or OWM’s, with transverse processes more ventrally located. The lumbar vertebra of Morotopithecus on the other hand shows that the transverse process has located more posterior and originates now from slightly posterior to the pedicle.

Another change seen early in hominoids this paper demonstrates is the loss of the styloid process, allowing greater excursion of the facet joint. Facet excursion is greater in humans than apes and this also contributes to a greater degree of lordosis, as such this anatomical minutia may be of little functional significance in its apparent first appearance in Morotopithecus due to passive lumbar spine rigidity. It’s presence in derived hominid forms however is important.

The transverse orientation in Morotpithecus is very similar to that of the great ape condition and more derived than that of Pronconsul. Indeed this feature is shared with all hominiform hominoids. An additional difference seen between OWM's, great apes and humans is invagination of the entire vertebral column ventrally thus providing more passive rigidity.

Pelvis

The hominid pelvis displays many features unique to supporting bipedalism. The main adaptations in the pelvis accompanied many of the changes previously described in the lumbar spine. As such it is of interest to examine these also.

The pelvic arrangement of Proconsul, un-surprisingly, was similar in structure of OWM’s and probably intermediate to hylobatids. It was narrow, with iliac blades facing laterally. The axis of the iliac crest is anteroposterior, presenting considerably smaller leverage for the lumbar extensors than found in other hominoids. However this was likely made up for by large and powerful lumbar extensors which we will discuss in the next part of the series. The change in lumbar spinal length between early Miocene apes and later, larger apes was also accompanied by changes in the pelvis. The superoinferior height of the illium increased which usually results in a 'capture' of the two lower lumbar vertebrae. The image below shows this and highlights the difference in size of illium between hylobatids (a similar arrangement to OWM’s) (left) great apes (right), and it also highlights the loss of this in humans (centre). This along with the previously mention changes in the vertebrae produced a great degree of passive rigidity and greatly reduced lumbar spinal movement in the great apes.

I am unable to find anything indicating that an elongated ilium was a primitive trait in Morotopithecus. Dryopithecus’ pelvis on the other hand differed from suggested sister species Oreopithecus. However Oreopithecus did also demonstrate entrapment of at least one lumbar vertebrae. This may have been an independent adaptation in both if also considering the differences or it may have been retained primitive trait. I’m not certain, however judging from vertebral remains Morotopithecus had a short stiff back. Whether accompanied by lumbar entrapment from the ilium or not as seen in other derived species and extant great apes is another question.

As well as extension of the lumbar vertebrae in hominid forms, a reduction in the size of the iliac blades was required, and a change in their orientation in order to permit bipedality. Oreopithecus exhibited a distinctly hominid like anterior inferior iliac spine much like Australopithecus afarensis and the trabecular features also demonstrate similarity with Homo. The ilium of Oreopithecus is likely significantly more elongated than seen in hominids such as Ardipithecus and Australopithecus, although due to the damage to the fossil it is difficult to be entirely certain.

Early hominids Ardipithecus and Australopithecus pelvis changed in a way which involved predominantly a shortening and broadening of the ilia and sacrum, and anterior angling of the ilia (Early and later article from Lovejoy). Here is a good description of bipedal adaptations in the hominid pelvis.

Conclusion

So we see that the current structure of the lumbar spine and pelvis seems to be one of compromise. Instead of acting in its original role in locomotion (flexion/extension) changes occurred in order to adapt to bridging and/or terrestrial quadruped movement such as a reduction in spine length, change in lumbar structure, invagination of the spinal column and change in the pelvic structure. This created a stable structure which the hind and forelimbs could extend.

It should be noted that as I mentioned the ‘short back’ hypothesis has been argued against. This argument comes from the observations of bipedally trained macaques and additionally the idea that if we evolved from a short backed ancestors we would have been unable to lordose.
However I am more inclined to accept the short back in an LCA.
Invoking behaviours seen in extant species is useful but only if it can be tied in with an evolutionary pressure. The macaques had been trained to walk bipedally and so the observation is independent of a plausible evolutionary pressure. However in chimpanzees and bonobos, the introduction of carrying greatly increased bipedal locomotion. This hypothesis would agree with findings of bipedality and human like grip features in Oreopithecus.
Additionally as we see in Morotopithecus, our early short backed miocene ape, the styloid process has already been lost which in the absences of lumabr entrapment would aid in permitting greater lordosis.

In adaptation to bipedality changes in length began to reverse and loss of styloid process remained in order to accommodate greater mobility, Invagination remained presumably to maintain some form of stability during locomotion. Similarities in vertebral trabeculae are closer between humans and early hominids than apes demonstrating the adaptation to changes locomotion.

The changes that in the lumbar spine and pelvis that occurred between early Miocene apes, later Miocene apes and subsequently in humans appears to have influenced the evolution of the supporting musculature also and has been the result of the adapted passive rigidity seen in short backed apes.

Next post will discuss these muscular adaptations.

Fatigue Resistance Testing - Whats it worth and is there really any empirical basis for different loading/TUL schemes?

2011-02-26T04:46:00.000-08:00

A colleague highlighted a paper to me the other day which examined and area that both of us had considered as research proposals independently prior to becoming aware of it.

The fatigue resistance test (FRT), in which a maximal isometric test of an isolated joint is performed, followed by a set of dynamic exercise to momentary muscular failure and then immediately followed by another maximal test, was proposed by Arthur Jones to provide a reasonable prediction of a subjects fibre type composition. Essentially, so the idea goes, the greater the drop off in strength after fatiguing exercise, the greater the proportion of fast twitch fibres present.

Now, to my knowledge, this test has never been empirically examined to see whether it is valid in accordance with muscle biopsies from the muscles tested. Additionally any joint movement tested generally involves more than one muscle and so there is the assumption that fibre composition is uniform across the muscle groups.

However, a Danish research group have begun examining the concept of the FRT and have looked to see whether it holds any predictive power in determining the extent of gains made from a resistance exercise program.

Here is the abstract:

Can a fatigue test of the isolated lumbar extensor muscles of untrained young men predict strength progression in a resistance exercise program?

The studies findings indicated that the FRT showed no significant relationship to strength gains and that work capacity (reps x weight during second phase of FRT) showed only a modest (r=0.58-0.59) relationship. Considering the authors own comments in the full text on the disadvantage of work capacity as strength indicator (both variables involved are equally weighted but can fluctuate to varying degrees over time), I am lead to think that this is likely little more useful in prediction than the FRT.

Now what I have found most interesting with regard to this paper comes from their initial hypothesis. Their data causes me question another similar hypothesis, that although widely spoke of within the Resistance training community and not without theoretical basis or anecdotal support, has no empirical studies in support of it.

The authors hypothesis was as follows from the full text:

"We hypothesised that subjects with low levels of fatigue would show a trend towards larger training progression than subjects with high levels of fatigue, as they were expected to be loaded more appropriate to their physiological training potential."

Certainly within the HIT community there are varying opinions upon different time under load (TUL), number of reps, or however people may be recording their progress. Some suggest that a particular TUL or rep-range may be better suited to a particular phenotype. When discussing genetics within Body By Science the idea is touched upon, however the evidence is very theoretical.

The training protocol the study utilised was aimed at being 'endurance' based involving a higher number of repetitions. (We'll forget the erroneous premise that endurance and strength gains are independent for now.) By showing no predictive value using their regression models the study essentially showed that participants with a lower fatigue rate in the FRT (potentially those with more slow twitch fibres) do not get any greater gains in strength when using a protocol more 'suited' to their phenotype.

There were no comparisons made to see if this were the case for those who were potentially more 'fast twitch' so we can't say for certain that the idea of physiologically suited training protocols can be entirely ruled out as bunk. But this study certainly doesn't help support the idea either.

In light of this a basic study and test of the hypothesis would ideally involve a design using two groups homogeneous of phenotypes i.e. half fast, half slow twitch (Ok we could go into more detail with this but you get the idea). Both groups train using a protocol involving training to momentary muscular failure with one variation between groups. One group trains using a high weight with low reps/TUL, the other trains using low weight high reps/TUL and we compare the subgroups in pre and post strength/hypertrophy. Simple.

Without any conclusive evidence I must say I have to agree with the conclusion from Carpinelli's article on the Size Principle :

"Very high RMs (e.g., loads lighter than 20 RM) or an extensive time under load (e.g., longer than 2–3 minutes) may involve mechanisms of fatigue that are not conducive to stimulate optimal increases in muscular strength. Despite the plethora of opinions in the resistance training literature, the specific mechanisms of fatigue and exactly what constitutes an optimal stimulus for strength gains are unknown. If a maximal—or near maximal—effort is applied at the end of a set of repetitions, the evidence strongly suggests that the different external forces produced with different amounts of resistance elicit similar outcomes."

The corollary of this being that as different external forces seem not to matter so long as the set is to momentary muscular failure, neither does the accompanying different rep-ranges or TUL's.

Speaking at The 21 Convention 2011, London, England

2011-02-23T06:30:00.000-08:00

I have supported The 21 Convention and what it stands for since I first came across a little over a year ago.

In that time I have gained such value for the event, what it stands for, the speakers, the attendees and the guy who makes it all happen, Anthony Dream Johnson, that I have wondered how I could repay that value I had gained.

I had thought about this many times before and was always in dismay that my fiscal position did not allow me to directly contribute to the convention in a 'traditional' manner. So instead I always attempt to take part in what valuable discussion's occur regarding the convention, its speakers and their topics, or posts from Anthony over at his blog, taking time to write my comments and impart some value in return for that which I have gained.

As I see, this is an inherently selfish transaction.

In relation to this I was awed today after finding out that another commenter (Joe A) at Anthony's blog had gifted me with an order of DVD's containing convention footage. This gift was not altruistic in any way. In fact it was a purely selfish action which came down to the desire to support the convention.

As Anthony put in his 2010 speech in Orlando - "Your own expression of doing what is in your best interest may be different than my own, but I strongly encourage you to follow it – for your own sake, and mine."

Joe A made it undeniably clear of his reasons for his action. They were inherently selfish, and he benefited from it. Yet both myself, Anthony and the convention benefited also from this action.
It just goes to show how powerful a virtue rational self-interest truly is.

I'll add one more quote from Anthony's essay - “We can help each other best, by helping ourselves first”.

I have a view of what an ideal world should look like, and it is only right that I should selfishly act to try and make that world view. The 21 Convention is a force aimed in that direction.

I wholeheartedly agree with Doug McGuff's comment on the convention.

"…I must say, this group of young people has given me hope for the future. Their motivation to improve their lives in all realms was truly inspiring… I now feel like here may be some hope that this generation can be instrumental in pulling us from the brink of economic and societal collapse. Thanks to Anthony for putting together such a great event and such an impressive group of young people."
-Doug McGuff MD

In fact I expressed much the same in a personal message to Anthony a while back.

"I have come to realise what The 21 Convention really stands for; integrity, self esteem, the rational mind, making the most of the life you have and valuing that life. I feel that with you leading it and the men that it attracts pushing it forward, it will not just represent a changing paradigm in this world, but it can, and I believe will, change it."

This is why it is an honour to have been considered to speak at The 21 Convention 2011 in London, England.

I am truly looking forward to the event, meeting the speakers, attendees and the man behind it all.

The Four Hour Body - Misrepresentation of academic literature and a lack of understanding of 'strength'

2011-02-12T10:18:00.000-08:00

I have been reading The Four Hour Body by Timothy Ferriss and while I have enjoyed it very much so far, one thing annoyed me a great deal and has prompted me to write this post.

Tim writes the following in regard to a paper entitled 'Strength Training Methods and the Work of Arthur Jones' published in 2004 in Journal of Exercise Physiology Online:

"This research review compares single-set and multiple-set strength gains. The authors incorporate 112 sources to answer the question: Are multiple sets really better than single sets. For muscular growth, it's hard to beat the economy of single sets. For pure strength with little weight gain, different approaches are more effective.

Ok, first off, Tim clearly acknowledges that the review paper written by Smith and Bruce-Low examined strength gains in response to single or multiple set training, which it does.

He then goes on to say that 112 sources were used to answer the question of which was better. Tim is mistaken here however. The paper does indeed have 112 references, however the single versus multiple set debate is not the only thing discussed within the paper. There are three other sections examining training frequency, speed of movement during exercise, and repetition ranges. Only the first section deals with the single versus multiple set debate. Without counting up the references individually, the last number reference in that section is 74. The references are numbered in order first cited. This is the first time the reference is cited. Therefore possibly only 74 references were examined to answer the question of whether single sets were better than multiple.

Ok I know that was very pedantic but it just annoyed me and gave me the impression that he didn't even read the whole paper and just flicked over the abstract and looked at how many references were there.

Coming back to the strength gains comment. Tim rightly states that the paper looks at strength gains. He also says that single sets are superior for muscular growth. Research is cited in support of this statement in the paper, for example here and here. That's two well controlled studies that examined hypertrophy in response to single or multiple sets showing no significant difference. The rest of the section examines a great deal more than two papers, in demonstrating no significant difference in strength increases in response to single or multiple sets.

So why does Tim only favour single sets for muscular growth and not for strength? Why does he suggest that you can develop strength without weight gain (I assume he means lean muscle gain).

At this point I decided to flick ahead to the books section on 'Strength.'

Ah, Ok here it is. This is why Tim does not favour single set training for what he calls 'strength.' He says:

"Strength is a skill"

This is were it seems the title 'Effortless Superhuman' comes for the chapter. Tim recommends several peculiar training protocols involving powerlifts and plyometrics whilst assuming a misrepresentation of the basic premise that stronger muscles will enhance performance.

Explosive exercises such as the plyometrics recommended or Olympic style lifting are in no way proven to produce greater strength increases or enhance athletic performance any more than traditionally performed slow resistance training. Bruce-Low and Smith wrote another review of exactly this. I wonder whether Tim managed to read that. Additionally they conclude the following in this review:

"Also, such explosive exercises do not transfer well (if at all) to athletic performance on the sports field, and represent a significant injury risk. Therefore, such exercises should not be recommended in the strength and conditioning training of athletes, except those who need to learn the specific skill of lifting heavy weights fast, such as Olympic lifters and strongmen."

So Tim is right and the idea that performing his recommendations will make you superhuman is only true in the respect that you may become more 'skilled' at the specific performance of a particular lift or exercise. Hardly superhuman! I'm pretty sure superman isn't just superstrong at deadlifting!

Strength, per se, is not specific, and as such is not a skill. The application of strength to a particular movement is a skill.

Therefore any subsequent improvement in athletic performance as a result of performing a particular exercise program is more likely due to physiological adaptation i.e. strength, that is then transferable to another application. Any transference seen to athletic performance from following Tims recommendations is likely due to actual strength increases. But then we come back to our original review paper which found that single set exercise was sufficient to produce maximum strength gains.

Wanna get good at dealifting then deadlift. Wanna get good at running then run. Wanna improve muscular strength that can then be transferable to a number of different skills involving the trained muscles, then perform single set resistance training to momentary muscular failure.

Do not confuse deadlifting (or any other sufficiently complex movement) alot of weight with great muscle strength. The deadlift involves large degree of skill in its performance which makes it hard to distinguish between technique improvement or actual strength gains.

The very fact that Tim suggests that strength gains can be had by performing the exercise he recommends with little gain in body weight just further shows that much of the increase demonstrated in his case studies is likely skill improvement.

If it were strength without muscle gain then why not consider the study by Borst et al, cited in the Arthurs Jones paper, that shows significant increases in strength with 3 sets as opposed to 1 set without any change in body composition. If we considered this based upon Tims understanding of strength we would have to say that 3 sets are best for 'pure strength' increases. Smith and Bruce-Low suggest that as no observable muscular increases where shown, the training protocol was ineffective regardless of volume. In fact, the 3 set group most likely demonstrated greater increases on this protocol, that was ineffective for muscular adaptations, precisely because they spent significantly more time practicing their lifts. Skill improvement.

I find it odd that Tim acknowledges Doug McGuff at the beginning of the book and then goes on to suggest these things. Strange.

Anyway, like I said, I am enjoying most of the book nonetheless as what Tim suggests it is. 'The Diary of a Madman.'

Visit to the US of A - MedX Course and Ron Paul's Revolution

2011-02-08T03:18:00.000-08:00

Thursday 27th January - Monday 31st January

Last week I left the United Kingdom for my first ever trip across the Atlantic. I flew from London, Heathrow 2.30pm UK time and arrived at Detroit Metro, Michigan at around 5.30 pm local time. The flight took a total of 8 hours.

During that time I managed to get a lot of reading done, including several research articles for a review paper I was writing, half of Dr Malcom Hollick's book The Vitamin D Solution, and I read almost all of Ron Paul's book The Revolution: A Manifesto.

The Revolution: A Manifesto - Ron Paul

Quite simply Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air in a world where mans unalienable right to his life and liberty appear to mean so little nowadays. Anthony was quite right in describing him as 'The best man in the world'.

In the Federal Union of the United States of America, the first truly free society that man ever established, where a single document unequivocally outlines the only rational purpose of government in a country of free individuals,

“That to secure these rights [individual life, liberty, and the pursuit of one's own happiness], governments are instituted among men.”

Ron Paul is shining beacon of hope, not only for those United States, but for all men everywhere who understand their right to their life and liberty.

It is my hope that change in the USA in the form of Ron Paul's election as Chief Administrator will ignite the flame necessary to spark change everywhere that liberty is desired.

I've linked this documentary before when Anthony posted it. But I felt that it's importance justified it's posting again. So I have embedded it here and would advise everyone who reads this post to find the time to watch it and learn, especially if they don't want to take the time to actually read Ron Paul's book. To understand their right to their life and liberty. To understand how their own government is currently screwing them over in the most disgusting and evil ways possible (yes this includes our government here in the UK also). And to then make it important to them to fight for that unalienable right they hold to their own life and liberty, and to never let anyone take, or dictate to them what their rights are, when deep down they should know that all rights can only stem from this one singular and basic moral premise.

MedX Lumbar Extension & Cervical Extension Course

The actual purpose of my trip was to complete a course in order to qualify me in the use of the MedX Lumbar Extension Machine (and also the Cervical Extension as it was there).

I had been using the machine for the past three years already and was very capable in it's operation. The course was really just to get a piece of paper saying so. This will hopefully serve useful when dealing with ethics committee's in future research proposals.

What I really gained from the course was the opportunity to use and experience the Cervical Extension Machine, and also to spend time with DeEtte, the woman who ran the course.

DeEtte was with MedX right from the beginning after getting involved with the preliminary research. Her insights, especially her clinical experience with treating specific diagnoses with the MedX Lumbar Extension were extremely valuable.

Along with that, her stories about Arthur Jones were both fascinating and hilarious. Stories about how after sales reps had spent months wining and dining potential clients, including physical therapists, neurosurgeons and many others, he would proceed to insult the intelligence (and manhood) of each and every person in the room during his final seminar. The sales reps would then end up chasing people out of the room explaining how he didn't mean it.

Brief Experience in the USA

I didn't really get much of a chance to explore so to speak. Most of my time was spent in the clinic during the course, in the hotel, or eating lunch/dinner out.

On my last day I did manage to have a wander around, mainly looking around some large American department stores. There wasn't much to see where I was staying and it was bitterly cold with a foot a snow everywhere. I did get dropped in downtown Brighton, Michigan where I got to look around some little shops and check out some of the architecture, there was also a very beautiful millpond which was completely frozen over, ducks huddled together in one corner of it. I also popped into a Borders to check out some of the books on my 'To Buy' list, such as Gary Taubes Why We Get Fat and What to do About it which weren't yet available in the UK.

All in all I enjoyed my trip away as brief as it was. I would love to return and visit other areas of the USA one day, and experience the whole spectrum of American states and life.

Disability and Range of Motion - Flipping the relationship

2011-02-07T08:57:00.000-08:00

Relationships can often be interpreted the wrong way round. Here's a good example from lumbar spine disability.

Lumbar spine range of motion as a measure of physical and functional impairment: an investigation of validity.

The authors examined two different methods for determining lumbar spine ROM, suggested by the AMA to represent level of disability in those with CLBP. Poor ROM is interpreted as high disability.

So what they did was examine the relationships between ROM and disability as determined by a variety of measures including two questionnaire's and also a physical examination by the therapist.

Here's their conclusion

CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence for a relationship between low back range of motion and impairment, and thus it would appear illogical to evaluate impairment in chronic low back pain patients using a spinal range of motion model when aiming to measure or compensate disability.

See the problem here?

They are correct, their data showed no relationship. The problem is that they draw the assumption that the criterion measure's are the ones they compared the ROM tests to.

The supposed 'criterion' measures they have used include two subjectively answered questionnaire's and a subjectively performed physical examination.

Lets flip it round this time.

We could consider that the opposite to their conclusion could also be drawn from the same data. It just depends on how you look at it.

If instead physical ROM is determined as the criterion measure then instead the conclusion might be that disability scores as indicated by the tests used does not accurately represent actual physical disability.

And thus we have another great example of bad science from the world of the lower back.

I would contend that a valid criterion measurement of disability must be physical and objective, not subjectively measured such as in questionnaire format. As such the second conclusion in my opinion is the more important especially in the context of clinical practice.

Is exposure to vibration really a risk factor for disc degeneration?

2011-02-07T02:07:00.000-08:00

Epidemiological studies have identified exposure to vibration, especially whilst sitting, as a risk factor for future development of disc degeneration.

Relationships between two variables in an epidemiological study can be subject to numerous confounders that may give the impression of relationship between the two variables. On top of this people often misinterpret epidemiological findings to imply a casual relationship between the two variables.

That's why I found this abstract that came along with My NCBI alerts this month interesting.

Disc strain and resulting positive mRNA expression from application of a non-invasive treatment.

Disc degeneration involves the degradation of the extracellular matrix leading to cracks in the lamellae. Interestingly this study found the following.

CONCLUSION. Expression of the extracellular matrix genes were significantly up regulated when vibrated with the intervention under specific loading patterns, indicating a potential therapeutic stimulus.

The vibration used as a non invasive treatment actually promoted gene expression of those involved with the maintenance of the extracellular matrix. So how come vibration is found to be a risk factor for disc degeneration?

Perhaps it has something to do with the time exposed to the stimulus. This study exposed the discs to 10 mins of vibration. Perhaps more exposure than this actually results in a negative response. I previously discussed the idea of disc health and loading in an old post, where I mentioned my hypothesis that heavy loadings with sufficient recovery may promote beneficial disk adaptations. A similar effect may be at work here.

Maybe I will look into this further at a later date and tease apart the epidemiological relationships along with the lab studies such as this.

Last 24 hours or so.

2011-02-06T11:45:00.000-08:00

Friday afternoon I ate at around 4.00pm and then proceeded to work 8 hours at my part time bar job finishing at 1.00am. I managed to get about 5 hours sleep before getting up to go to work my other part time job from 9.00am til midday. After that I headed home, grabbed my gym gear (shorts, t shirt and vibram five fingers), and manged to get to the gym and begin my workout by about 2.00. I performed the following workout.

Pulse Chest Press - 52.5kg for 1 set to momentary muscular failure
Pulse Leg Press - 170kg for 1 set to momentary muscular failure
Pulse Pulldown - 85kg for 1 set to momentary muscular failure

It was 4.00 by the time I ate, having been 24 hours since my previous meal. I was fasted, sleep deprived and had performed a workout. The next 24 or so hours as far as I was concerned were going to be eating and sleeping.

So I thought I'd chronicle the period just to have a look at how much I consumed without any real attempt to deliberately over eat. Kcal's are approximates based upon FitDay.com and food packaging.

4.00pm

2 squares of dark chocolate - 130kcal
Beef liver with red onion and salad - 450kcal
Vit D 4000iu

5.00pm

4 egg omelette with bacon, sliced sprouts, chives, garlic, black pepper and
topped with cheddar cheese - 1000kcal

5.30pm

1 square dark choc - 65kcal

7.30pm

Small steak, chorizo and tomato drizzled in chilli olive oil and butter -
500kcal

7.45pm

Emmental and sauerkraut - 300kcal
Ice water with 5 grams of creatine monohydrate
Fermented cod liver oil and butter oil

10.30pm - 9.30am' ish - Sleep

10.30am

Full fat greek yoghurt with macadamia nuts and almonds - 600kcal

11.00am

Coffee with cinnamon and double cream - 300kcal

11.30am

Emmental and sauerkraut - 300kcal

5.00am

Coffee with cinnamon and double cream - 300kcal

5.30

Baked Camembert with garlic and chilli infused olive oil - 600kcal

7.00

Roast beef, potato, sweet potato, carrot, Jerusalem artichoke and sprouts all
smothered in butter - 1500kcal

7.30

Vanilla ice cream, full fat greek yoghurt, 2 squares dark chocolate,
cranberries, macadamias and cinnamon - 1700kcal

Ok so a a bit over 24 hours and I have consumed approximately 7745kcal which arguably was a conservative estimate.

Oh no I must have put on over a pound of fat in the last 24 hours!!! Perhaps if the calorie's in calorie's out paradigm was correct, and the first law of thermodynamics actually applied to the human organism then I would have. But its probably not.

I don't count calories. I didn't weigh myself and didn't intend to. I didn't weigh myself before I began. I just happened to have a pretty stressful 24 hours followed by just over 24 hours of feasting and sleeping and thought it would be interesting to chronicle it and out of curiosity to look at how much I was actually eating.

Thats a pretty typical amount of eating in all honesty. My total calories probably aren't quite that much all the time but they can come close to it quite often I would imagine. And yet, after eating like this for over a year now, and only working out once every 7-14 days, I have maintained a pretty stable weight of around 67-68kg.

So much for calories in calories out.

I have seen a slight increase over the past six months leading to 68kg and I plan on jumping in the bodpod to check out my bodyfat % to see whether it is lean or fat mass. Before staring eating a paleo/lowcarb diet I had a bodpod test and was 4.7% bodyfat.

I'll try to get a test done this week and see what it reads.

Your offended? I don't give a sh#t!!

2011-02-04T04:05:00.000-08:00

It caught my attention last night driving home that three separate pieces of news on the radio were either began or ending with something along the lines of the following.

Some listeners may be offended by.....

or

We apologise if any listeners were offended by.....

SERIOUSLY??

Do people not understand that being offended is a completely subjective phenomenon. It's based upon a number of variables including past experience, social conditioning etc. and people are offended by different things.

What offends you might not offend me and vice versa.

For crying out loud! Do people who report on the news or offer their opinions in any discipline not realise the implications of this type of 'political correctness'?

Anyone could be offended by anything.

There are only three logical options to deal with that fact.

1. You say and do nothing, just in case you offend someone.

2.You apologise either up front or after the incident for any offense caused to ANYONE by ANYTHING you say or do.

3. You apologise for nothing, especially your opinion on any topic, because..... you don't give a sh#t!!

Number 1 and 2 are the logical consequence's of caring about offending people. Now you could care less about offending some people over others, but how do news reporters decide who they will offend and not offend? Or who they apologise to and don't apologise to?

It's ridiculous. They would have to begin every story with some disclaimer regarding the chance of offending someone, or, never report anything....just in case they offended someone.

Whatever happened to liberty and freedom of speech?? Why does the state, collective or anyone, have any right to oppress intellectual freedom and opinion?

Number 3 on the over hand takes care of this completely. Anyone can be offended by anything. It doesn't matter what you do, someone, somewhere, might be offended. So you forget about the uncontrollable. You never apologise for your opinion or the information you portray.

Comedian Steve Hughes brings up the ridiculous notion of being offended in the following video.

Enjoy!!

Last years read, this years reading.

2011-02-01T09:15:00.000-08:00

I read a bunch of books last year (above are some pictured) so thought I'd pop a post up recommending some.

The complete list of books I read last year looks like this:
The Primal Blueprint - Mark Sisson
The Diet Delusion (or Good Calorie, Bad Calorie if your not in the UK) - Gary Taubes
The Vegetarian Myth - Lierre Keith
An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology - Ayn Rand & Leonard Peikoff
Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand
The Fountainhead - Ayn Rand
The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
Why Does E=mc2 - Brian Cox & Jeff Forshaw
Guns, Germs and Steel - Jared Diamond
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable - Nicholas N. Taleb
Moment Arm Exercise - Bill DeSimone
The Four Hour Work Week - Tim Ferriss
Gotrek & Felix 3rd Omnibus - William King & Nathan Long
The Killing Ground - Graham McNeil
Horus Rising - Dan Abnett

Additionally Xmas just passed and ended with me getting loads of books as gifts ,and also money gifted which I subsequently spent on books. As you can see from the following picture, I've my work cut out for me this year with reading.

I always like to have 3 books open at any one time.

One non-fiction book to expand my knowledge of the topics I am interested in.

One fiction book which I like to read before retiring to bed, hopefully relaxing in the process.

An additional book which for use of a better word I term my 'poo' book. Apologies but it's a true label. Not because the book is bad in anyway. I always like to have a book which I can pick up, read a few pages, then put it down and pick up another time without having to remember whats happened previously. So the perfect time for this book is whilst relieving myself.

This xmas I gained the following non-fiction books.

I gained the following fictional books.

And these are my current 'poo' books.

Gonna be a good year of reading.......

Skeletal Muscle Mechanics

2011-02-01T06:01:00.000-08:00

Skeletal muscle mechanics: implications for rehabilitation.

An old article, but great nonetheless. Reviews and explains succinctly the past 100 or so years of research into determining the mechanics and contractile properties of skeletal muscle.

Length - Tension Relationship
Force - Velocity Relationship
Skeletal Muscle Architecture
Muscle Moment Arms
ROM as a Function of Architecture

I thought it would serve a good follow up to my quick post from the other day.

Enjoy!

Small muscles fatigue first? Don't be so naive.

2011-01-29T16:45:00.000-08:00

I came across a comment I made in an online discussion a long time ago earlier which I thought was worth a quick re post here as it is something often assumed in the resistance training community and I find in particular the HIT community.

The idea that smaller muscles produce less force than larger muscles is a little bit of a misnomer. The terms smaller and larger don't explain alot in as far as they are used on their own. A muscle ability to produce force or tension is indeed a product of the size of its cross sectional area, but this is also impacted by the orientation of the muscle fibres.

But any way this misnomer has led to thinking along the following lines.

If you think about it, all compound moves taken to failure will fall short because of smaller weaker muscles

That was a comment made in the previous discussion and the following was my response.

Intuitively it seems reasonable to assume that a smaller muscle will always fail first on a compound movement, but ..... this is not always the case. It will be entirely dependent upon a whole host of variables. For example on the pulldown, at midpoint of the ROM the moment arm around the elbow is significantly reduced, but is maximal about the shoulder. Thus at this point in the ROM the various muscles contributing to the total movement are actually experiencing entirely different resistance torques, which may serve to fatigue them at entirely different rates. The only way to objectively determine the fatigue indices of various muscle during an exercise would be to perform examine fatigue rates using EMG. Even this is not a very exact technique (numerous confounding issues with measurement). And this would only be useful on an individual bases for most movements as other factors such as tendon length will significantly affect the shape of the strength curve and thus the immediate load the any particular muscle is experience at any point during the ROM.

My point here is that it is naive to assume that a smaller muscle will fatigue first in a compound movement just because it is small. Perhaps this may be the case were the absolute resistance torques being experienced by each muscle the same, however this is not the case and that variable will be changing.

I've not seen any objective evidence to suggest that smaller muscle's de facto fatigue first. Theoretically it should actually be the muscle which experiences the greatest relative load that would fatigue first. That may or may not be the smaller muscle's depending on the biomechanics of the exercise.

A man who's judgement I value - Best in the world by my judgment.

2011-01-15T14:18:00.000-08:00

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Man must hold his own judgement higher than all others. However that does does not presuppose that man cannot ascribe value, by action of his faculty of reason, to the judgment of another man.

What I mean to say is that tribute offered to the virtues of man can be accepted as value by those receiving such tribute, but only if the tribute comes in exchange for the the others virtues.

Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character

Having stated this I would like to note that a man who's virtue's I respect with the highest regard has passed judgement upon my own.

The best blog in the world with a lower back focus.
James Steele II

I would like to reciprocate that tribute based upon my judgement, though I'm sure it is already noted.

The best blog with a focus on man as an end in himself

The Dream Lounge (Anthony 'Dream' Johnson)

This Blog

This blog is a platform for me to express my thoughts, which are often regarding the lower back. I have thoughts on many other topics which I write on also, yet my selfish interests currently are very much focused on this topic.

I am almost finished with the second part of my Walking Tall series, and also have a number of other areas specific to the lower back which I will be writing posts on at some point including an expansion of some of the Bill DeSimone's (check out this preview of his 21 convention speech) concepts on limited range of motion training with regard for the lower back as my current area of research involves review of the literature in this area.

These topics are my priority as it allows me to conduct literature reviews for my thesis and simultaneously use this blog for my thoughs whilst also writing them into academic form.

Looking after your car (body) - An addendum to "National Sickness Service"

2011-01-07T10:05:00.000-08:00

A brief addendum to my previous post as I anticipate any response to follow the lines of:

What do you suggest we do about x/y/z then?

Mainly from those who misunderstand how a free market health care system should operate and the benefits it would provide for all those involved.

I thought I would adapt and bullet point some of the suggestions made in The Plan. Carswell and Hannan look to the Singapore Health Care system where health outcomes are impressive (far greater than nearly all European nations) with an expenditure of only 3.5 per cent GDP.

This is how I feel health care should be operated:

Understanding and seperation of forseeable costs (i.e. general maintenance of health) and catastrophic costs (i.e. diagnosis of a critical condition, life threatening accident etc)
In the same manner as I mentioned in the previous post, individuals may save money in order to cover forseeable costs involved with the maintenance of their health (Health Savings). This would be used to cover consultations, prescribed treatment etc. and the patient would have complete control over where and what they received in return for their money.
In order to compensate for catastrophe with regards to health, individuals may choose to purchase insurance to cover unforseen and large costs involved (Catastrophe Insurance).
The change to a free market system in terms of health care and also health insurance would allow introduction of price sensitivity based upon the newly competitive nature of the health care market.
Competition between health care providers, insurance companies etc. would encourage innovation and adaptability.
The result being that control of health is placed back into patients hands. Like in any other purchase, patients have a choice over whether to spend more or less, and the subsequent quality of service they receive in return.
As mentioned, none of this means that those without the means to get health care will de facto go without. Charity is also a free choice and many people will willingly make this choice, and in my opinion, are more likely to do this when not being coerced to do so.

The analogy of treating your body with respect to health is synonymous with the manner with which you look after a car.

You make sure you have some money available for day to day running i.e. fuel (food).
You try to make sure this is the best fuel, but you have a choice whether to buy premium or not (you also have a choice whether to buy foods that will maintain your optimal health, or to buy foods that may result in less than optimal performance).
You put a little money away just in case you need repairs, or to cover service costs by the mechanic (GP).
You are also prudent enough to consider the posibility that an accident might occur, perhaps a crash (critical health condition), whether your fault or not, and decide to pay premiums towards an insurance policy that will pay out should the worst happen.

Brmm brmm, gonna take my well maintained body out for a spin.

"National Sickness Service"

2011-01-07T08:45:00.000-08:00

It goes without saying. Obvious to all onlookers. The NHS does not function as intended. All in all it could be considered a failure. The coined named "National Sickness Service" has been used to highlight its main action of treating sickness as opposed to encouraging prevention.

I am currently reading through a book called The Plan: 12 Months to Renew Britain. The authors are Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan MEP, whom I was introduced to through watching a documentary about Ron Paul over at Anthony's blog.

I wont delve to much into the book and it's proposals. I see the majority of the idea's within it as more of a progress towards an ideal form of government, and some of them I disagree with on my absolute principal. Needless to say I am not happy with saying that I agree with what should be considered a compromise as detailed in The Plan, but I acknowledge the need to a gradual reform and dissolution of government. Sadly it is not something that can be done overnight.

What caught my interest though and what I want to quickly mention is a matter of logic with regard to the moral implications of the current National Health Service.

The NHS as its stands is run by whats termed as 'public funding.' At face value one might interpret this as charitable gifting to the cause of providing health service for those who need it. In reality it means that money is taxed (read stolen) from individuals in order to fund a service which they may wish to have no part in.

It is argued, that it is a moral obligation, by everyone, to provide health care, to everyone.

I strongly disagree.

I myself expect no such thing as a right other than that which I can provide as an extension of my right to my own life and freedom. As such, if I were to choose to take part in such activities that may result in my need for health care the responsibility is entirely my own and I take full responsibility for paying for any services rendered to me. As Doug Casey puts it in this video (I suggest watching it all), people put money away for when their car breaks down, why not do the same thing for if their body breaks down.

At the same time it is a violation of my freedom when national insurance contributions are taken from my personal income to fund someone ele's health care.

I am against National Health. I am for free market health care.

The current issue is that people allow contradictions in their interpretation of what constitutes freedom. As Carswell and Hannan put it in reference to the seeming contradiction in health care:

There are people who find the very mention of money in the context of health care distasteful. Surely there is something elevated and ennobling about knowing that the sick will be cured regardless of their means, they say. Health, after all, is a universal human need. (So, even more, is food, although no one argues that it should be apportioned by a National Food Service.)

The argument I undoubtedly come across in opposition of my position when applied to health care is in regard to people who are either ill regardless of their fault, cannot afford private health care etc.

My response is always the same. Having to purchase health care does not preclude that the one in need must do the purchasing. In other words, a free market health care system does not mean the abolishing of human benevolence i.e. charity.

It does not stop anyone from helping out those they care for. I can guarantee you that even if every health care system in the world were privatised there would still be people who give charitably in order to health people in situations where they cannot afford the health care they need.

Again from Carswell and Hannan:

(The NHS)...Like other Bureaucracies, it contains many selfless and
brilliant people...

I would argue against the idea of selflessness in principle as people only help others if they value the action of doing so. This is inherently selfish, yet benefits both parties involved.

However the point I see being made by this is that either with, or without the NHS, there will still be people willing to help others.

The NHS is one of the poorest performing health care systems in the world with death rates far worse than most others. This is not the fault of the brilliant people working against the tide of governmental control whilst trying to provide care. It is the Governmental control itself. Governmental control of health care removes patient choice with regard to care.

A free market system would encourage competition between providers subsequently improving quality of care. Patients would free to choose where to spend money on their health instead of having it stolen from them to prop up a failing Bureaucracy. All the while people would be free to spend their money on helping other with heath care should they wish to.

Acute back pain. Thoughts and experience.

2011-01-03T02:26:00.000-08:00

I'm suffering quite considerably at the moment with a bout of acute back pain. It came quite frankly because I was foolish in performing heavy deadlifts at a time when my hip was suffering also. Due to this my lumbar spine was apparently loaded more substantially as indicated by the greater than usual soreness in my lumbar region, and less soreness in my gluteals and hamstrings, in the following days. Combined with a slip on the ice my already sore lower back was apparently unable to deal with this perturbation.

The focus of my research lies mainly with treating chronic sufferers of back pain, however in my current condition I felt prompted to write a brief post regarding some of the myths around acute back pain.

The Natural History of Acute Back Pain

What most people are unaware of is that acute back pain tends to resolve itself, apparently regardless of what is done in the aim of treating it, within the time scale of roughly six to twelve weeks. Back pain that lasts any longer than this generally predicts recurrence later in life i.e. can develop in chronic pain.

The fact that acute pain generally resolves itself has given rise to many false beliefs regarding treatments effectiveness and also erroneous assumptions that such treatments will be effective for chronic patients also. This is an error of logic based upon cause and effect.

It's a bit like going to your Raiki practitioner when you have a cold, then waking up the next day to find its gone and drawing the conclusion that the Raiki had something to do with it (great example courtesy of Tim Minchin as I bought his DVD the other day, people are funny). Clear case of Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.

This happens alot in scientific literature and I have notice a lot of it in the literature on back pain.

For Acute Back Pain - 'Just Get On With It'

No I'm not contradicting myself here, the previous post in which I commented negatively on the recommendation for people to 'just get on with it' applied to participants with chronic low back pain.

Acute back pain is a different kettle of fish in general. For example this study showed that participants suffering from acute back pain improved to a greater degree when instructed to continue with normal activity. The improvement in this group was in fact greater than the group performing exercise. However upon closer inspection the exercise being performed were movements indicated by a physiotherapist including back extension and lateral bending performed at home. I could be fairly certain that the exercises prescribed were performed without any meaningful resistance.

Why do people think Physiotherapy works for back pain?

Physiotherapy exercises including McKenzie techniques usually provide no additional benefit when compared to other treatments. In studies that do demonstrate it's effectiveness this is usually specifically in acute back pain (here and here). I'm a little skeptical of a treatment that only shows effectiveness for acute pain when considering the natural history of acute back pain, especially when as we have seen continuing normal activity can outperform it. As explained above, a logical error in interpretation.

Even the McKenzie Institute International present conflicting evidence regarding it's effectiveness (http://www.mckenzieinstitute.co.uk/ and click on Research Links).

I do not consider physiotherapy to constitute 'proper' exercise anyway and so it being labelled as such in the study cited annoys me. Because of its reliance upon manual and ‘hands on’ procedures it is impossible to provide any objective measure of function or to provide an objective, systematic progression in treatment. In its essence manual therapy is based upon the subjective feeling of the therapist as to how much pressure, resistance or velocity they are providing during manipulation.

But what about 'proper' exercise?

Proper exercise should be hard, brief and infrequent, but aside from that in a clinical setting it should provide objectively measurable results. Physiotherapy cannot objectively measure anything or objectively provide a meaningful exercise stimulus.

I have not yet determined my full view on whether proper exercise is a useful tool in treating acute pain. I would predict that it would have little outcome upon return to normal activity and reduction in pain over the short term. However I think that it would be an extremely useful tool in preventing future recurrence.

Attempting to reduce risk of chronic low back pain in acute sufferers

I've commented before on how weakness and atrophy in the muscles that extend the lower back may contribute to development of back pain. This was Arthur Jones' predominant theory.

Well it seems that first time episode of back pain is associated with multifidus injury, and recovery of this muscle is not automatic following resolution of acute pain. This study had one group follow medical treatment, the majority of which seemed to include bed rest, and one group do the same but also complete exercise which were designed to activate the multifidus.

Interestingly the resolution of pain and return to normal activities was the same in both groups (Natural history of acute back pain anyone?), however only the group performing the multifidus exercises increased the cross sectional area of their multifidus.

The exercises performed were quantified as activating the multifidus using ultrasound. I feel I could safely say that specific lumbar extension resistance training would provide a greater stimulus for adaptation and likely produce greater results. But what I would really be interested in seeing would be a follow up on these participants for recurrence. I would suggest there is potential to reduce the risk of developing chronic low back pain by targeting acute pain with the correct treatment to begin with.

What Christmas means to me.

2010-12-25T02:32:00.000-08:00

As many know, I am an infidel. Therefore Christmas holds no religious meaning to me. I'd go as far as saying that in today's society the religious meaning of Christmas is shared by few and far between.

What Christmas means to me has nothing to do with thanks for the birth of a repenting yet omnipotent being such as Christianity holds. But for me Christmas has every thing to do with being with the people I love, offering gifts in recognition of the fact that I love them, marveling at the ingenuity's of the gifts given and enjoying good food and wine.

I've never once thought that Christmas had to have some religious meaning. I had always been skeptical of the man who is never seen, with his red clothes, black sack and belly like a bowlful of jelly. I never came to expect anything from this person I had never met.

To me Christmas is a secular concept. It is based in reality, in the love I have for my family and friends. The gifts I give, and the ones I receive, are all representative of this fact.

The Polar Bear is an incredible animal. I always enjoy seeing cards with penguins, polar bears and other such creatures that have nothing to do with the religious meaning of Christmas. The commercialisation of the holiday season demonstrates to me the creative potential of man. Opening my gifts this morning I was amazed at some of the simple yet ingenious items I received that will surely provide me with much value.

So here's to a Happy Secular Christmas from an Objectivist perspective.

Good Will to All.

The Virtue of Selfishness

2010-12-22T13:34:00.000-08:00

I have been reading The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand of late having before that read Atlas
Shrugged. The book centers on the philosophy of Objectivism, which is, as it is put on the back cover of my copy, an uncompromising defence of self interest as the engine of progress.

Rand describes Objectivism in it's simplest form as follows.

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”
If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign
invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Some recent discussions have highlighted how most people have a profound misunderstanding of rational-self interest. Most do not realise that selfishness underlies all of mans willed actions. Those who do understand I have found to be few and far between, Anthony 'Dream' Johnson however is exemplery of man living for his own sake, with his greatest productive acheivement as his goal.

The purpose of this post was to highlight the ethical views or morality of Objectivism.

MAN IS AN END IN HIMSELF

I have posted a video by Dr Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute before in which he describes the real issue with today's economic and political system as being a moral one. The conditioned view of most in today's day and age, and the view which has predominated leading to the moral decay is as follows.

I am my Brother's keeper

Consider the two moral positions for a moment if you will.

The first implies that man exists for his own sake. For the pursuit of his own life and of his own happiness. That man must choose his own virtues, that which stem from his right to his own life and liberty. That man is a being of integrity who stands by these values. That before man is able to offer love, the expression of reverence and worship in acknowledgement of the virtues of another, he must first love himself and his own life for this is the only means for him to confer it upon another. Before one can say 'I love you' one must learn to say 'I.'

The second implies that man exists not for his own sake. That man exists only as a sacrificial animal to be used at the whim of others. That man has no right to his own life and liberty and that any beggar may lay claim to his life and the product of it. In essence, man is not fit to live.

The first is the morality of life.

The second is the morality of death.

My reason for this post is a purely selfish one. I do not wish to live among men who think me as a means to their end. I wish to live in a world where men deal with each other as rational individuals, where the virtue of man is traded for the virtue of another.

I recently came across this pdf. It is a copy of Ayn Rand's book The Virtue of Selfishness. The reason I am sharing it is in recognition of its value and for the reasons detailed above. I hope that acknowledgement and sharing of the work is enough, though I recommend purchasing a copy of the text also. I hope that people reading this post will take the time to read it the book and bear its implications with the utmost of their integrity. For their own sake and mine.

Back Pain. Just a part of life?

2010-12-05T10:45:00.000-08:00

I've wrote about how low back pain is still very prevalent in indigenous and rural populations before and suggested that the predominant cause is likely physical owing to the absence of the typical psychosocial factors thought responsible for low back pain in these populations. In this article I linked to a paper which in part discussed the attitudes to pain between different cultures such as the indigenous Australians.

Rural Workers' Experience of Low Back Pain: Exploring Why They Continue to Work.

This abstract came up on a recent Pubmed search which I felt supported this idea of a culture gap.

Introduction: Many New Zealand rural workers have repeated low back pain (LBP) episodes yet continue to work. We wanted to find out why, given that other manual workers with LBP often end up on long term sick leave or permanently disabled.

Like I've said, back pain is still highly prevalent but some cultures deal with it differently. The thing is, despite some cultures just getting on with it, they shouldn't have to when effective rehabilitation can provide significant and maintained relief from pain and improvement in disability. I just found amazing what the authors suggest in terms of rehabilitating workers suffering with low back pain.

Implications: Rehabilitation interventions promoting job control and targeting positive attitudes towards getting on with work, whilst accepting LBP as part of everyday life, may have merit for other workers with LBP

That's right, They should be told to just get on with it. I get the impression that the authors don't have confidence in any form of rehabilitation that actually addresses the underlying cause. To them low back pain is just a "part of everyday life." They may be right. As I'll demonstrate in the next parts of my Walking Tall series, Homo sapiens may be predisposed to suffer with low back problems. But this doesn't mean we should just get on with it when effective treatments exist. Resistance exercise for the lower back in workplace scenarios is shown to be effective in improving strength, improving disability and reducing pain. To add to that it is also reduces rate of injury whilst being cost effective by reducing workers compensation costs. This may not be directly applicable to the New Zealand example as I've no idea about their system. However someone with low back pain can only go on for so long whilst suffering, eventually it catches up with most either in terms of pain or disability. Employers would be better advised to actively rehabilitate their injured employees as opposed to just telling them to get on with the job. And besides, a lower rate of injury means less employees off.

In Arthur's Shadow

2010-12-05T07:40:00.000-08:00

Arthur Jones, November 22th 1926 - August 28th 2007

For those not aware Drew Baye has recently revived and edited the original Nautilus Bulletins written by Arthur Jones in the 1970's at NautilusBulletins.com.

I was first introduced to Jones' work sadly after his death in 2007. Flex magazine had a small article in tribute to the man who changed the face of exercise and this was where I first came across him.

The Flex article wasn't really much considering Jones' contributions to the industry throughout his life. Jones' friends and family provided far greater tribute which can be read in this memorial.

Luckily for me it coincided with arriving at University to study Applied Sport Science with Dr Stewart Bruce-Low as my course leader. I was drawn away from Flex magazine and its myriad contradicting information and filled with even more pages of supplement advertisements. Instead I was thrown face first into the world of thinking critically and scientifically about exercise.

Jones' original works interested me greatly and reading through the reams of articles he wrote and published it was very interesting to see how his opinions regarding exercise changed over the years. Needless to say his later writings were a great deal more refined than the original bulletins, yet the principles of training harder, briefer and less often still hold strong. I still recommend the bulletins as essential reading for those I introduce to High Intensity Training. Jones' writing style captures the reader with cold hard logic, and even though some of his recommendations have been altered reading them is still interesting and a good lesson in critical thinking.

Drew's revival of the bulletins should hopefully encourage many others to read these important works. I would also highly recommend reading his book The Lumbar Spine, Cervical Spine and The Knee, or any of his other works which are available at ArthurJonesExercise.com

Before finishing I'd like to also draw attention to the book pictured above. In Arthur's Shadow, from what I can tell, is not a very well know or publicised book even within the HIT community. I recently purchased it after a colleague pointed it out to me. It is written by Gary Bannister and is in essence a a tribute to Arthur Jones. Despite being written before his death this book renders the few page piece in Flex magazine that originally introduced me to the man insignificant as a tribute. I highly recommend the book. It summarises many of Jones' thinking's on exercise and its format makes it very easy to pick up, read a few pages and then put back down.

My current research endeavours are looking to further our knowledge of the benefits of isolated resistance exercise for the lumbar extensors. I work near on daily with the MedX Lumbar Extension Machine helping people who suffer with chronic lower back pain. If not for Jones' research and development of the machine I would probably not be doing what I do now. For his contributions I would like to thank Arthur Jones.

Walking Tall Part 1 - The Evolutionary Path to Bipedality and Back Pain

2010-11-16T08:12:00.000-08:00

In a previous post I highlighted that back pain is still a highly prevalent problem within indigenous populations, both acute and chronic. This finding is very interesting to me as in the majority of cases where indigenous populations adhere to traditional lifestyles, chronic diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer are often non-existent. As such it seems that although keeping in line with a diet that we have evolved with will help prevent many chronic diseases, the same cannot be said with regards to traditional hunter gatherer lifestyles and back pain. I was obviously led to the anthropological record to see whether there was an explanation.

This started off as a single post but as I began to trawl the anthropological data I began to see links between it and some of the research I have been reviewing regarding gait and back pain. As we will see evolution of the lumbar spine and pelvis where required to permit the bipedality that distinguishes us as human. So I decided to turn this into a mini series in order to cover a few different things and tie in all in together at the end.

The series will cover the following:-

The Emergence of Bipedality
Evolutionary changes in the structure of lumbar spine and pelvis
Evolutionary changes in the musculature of the lumbar spine and hip
The role of the lumbar spine and hip in bipedal gait
What our evolutionary legacy has left us with

The Emergence of Bipedality

First things first, lets present the emergence of the hominid or more accurately hominini form.

The above figure depicts the current understanding of hominini phylogenetic relationships. Adaptations to upright posture and bipedality are the earliest known indicator of hominini lineage and its believed this trait became habitual around 6 million years ago (MYA). All species of Australopithecus show distinct characteristic's reflective of habitual bipedality. Earlier species do show evidence of bipedal adaptation however not to the extent that Australopithecus does.

However even earlier evidence of first adaptations permitting bipedality exist in the remains of early Propliopithecoid Morotopithecus bishopi dating as early as 21.6 MYA (Precise date has however been argued) which shows that although bipedality may not have been a fully developed trait in some species until around 6 MYA, characteristics that would lead to it are found in early common ancestors. It is generally acknowledged that hominoids diverged from early Miocene apes around 23 MYA (Propliopithecoidea rather than cercopithecoidea), and Old World Monkeys (OWM's) can be generally accepted as representative of these primitve apes. Hominoidea (great and lesser apes) gave rise to homininae including Humans or Hominini and chimps, gorilla's etc (we still are apes, and technically also monkeys). M. bishopi represents the early emergence of an anatomical basis that would have eventually allowed bipedality.

Significant changes occurred in both the lumbar spine and pelvis that allowed bipedality and these changes and their implications will be discussed in the posts that follow. But first lets highlight how locomotion changed during our evolution into hominid bipedal forms.

Do The Locomotion With Me

I don't plan on completely reconstructing a perfectly accurate record of Anthropoid phylogenetic relationships here. Others have done a splendid job of that already. All I want to do is demonstrate the main changes in locomotion in a very general sense over the course of our evolution. So for anyone well versed in phylogeny do expect errors in dating, placement etc.

Catarrhini - OWM's/Early Miocene Ape's - Arboreal quadrupeds

Early Miocene apes are generally anatomically similar to extant OWM's. Because of this alot can be learned from observing extant OWM's patterns of locomotion. For the most part OWM's are arboreal quadrupeds, meaning that the majority of their locomotion is performed using four limbs and is 'above branch.' Arboreal quadruped primates move identically to woolly opossums and also squirrel monkeys suggesting common ancestry and early specialisation in primates for fine branch locomotion. Three distinct forms of locomotion are common to OWM's, arboreal quadrupedalism, leaping and climbing, although slight variations exist between species. Flexion and extension of the spine play a key role locomotion for OWM's, especially in leaping. In some species up to 45% of locomotion is in the form of leaping.

Brachiation, or arm swinging is also seen in OWM's and lesser apes. Brachiation may have evolved independently in various subsequent daughter species from Miocene apes. Dryopithecus probably resembled cercopithecines more than hominoids in their locomotion (thus being 'dental apes' - monkey-like apes) and they likely also exhibited suspensory locomotion. Though some were much larger and potentially primarily terrestrial.

Pronograde clambering and climbing are thought to have also been an important form of locomotion. This is seen in macaques and pronograde activity is suggested to have been common within early great ape precursor Proconsul.

Hominoidea - Late Miocene Apes - Great Apes - Semi Teresstrial Quadrupeds - 'Bridging'

Further specialisation enhanced the grasping capabilities of the limbs which allowed development of a form of locomotion called bridging. Indeed some species, such as some Dryopithecenes, became so specialised that they gave rise to primarily suspensory species i.e. Orangutans. This form of locomotion was presumably a result of selection pressures resulting from becoming too large to remain arboreal. Brachiation still remains in at low frequencies in semi-terrestrial quadruped apes. The Chimpanzee also still exhibits it.

Another adaptation to acomodate an increase in the size of early primates was to become terrestrial or semi-terrestrial. As mentioned larger Dryopithecines are thought to have resembled great apes closely and probably exhibited similar terrestrial locomotion. Many hominidae forms developed a form of terrestrial quadrupedalism described as knuckle walking. Both the chimpanzee and gorilla are semi terrestrial quadrupeds, though their frequency of above branch activity is quite variable. Both arboreal and terrestrial quadrupedalism in primates are well explained and classified in the following paper.

Hominini - Semi-Terrestrial and Habitual Bipedality

M. bishopi has been reconstructed as a predominantly arboreal species, though it is thought to have relied upon fore-limb dominated vertical climbing and suspension much like many extant great apes exhibit and probably similar to Proconsul. As mentioned it demonstrates the earliest morphological changes that could permit bipedality, combined with traits seen in our closest extant relatives.

Its suggested that evidence from Ardipithecus ramidus showed our last common ancestor to lack the characteristics specialised for for the vertical suspension, climbing and terrestrial knuckle walking that great apes exhibit, that they were acquired independently and so present poor models for evolution of bipedality. However, that some early Miocene apes such as Dryopithecus major were large and potentially exhibited similar movement patterns to extant great apes (terrestrial quadrupedalism and suspension), I am inclined to think that our last common ancestor probably also exhibited such characteristics, especially in light of traits seen in M. bishopi and other more derived forms. As such I think semi-terrestrial quadrupedalism evolved prior to the advent of bipedality and was not an independent specialisation. Although a degree of specialisation will have undoubtedly occurred in extant great apes such as seen in the orangutan.

As mentioned earlier, habitual bipedality probably emerged first in Australopithecines. However Ar. ramidus clearly shows evidence of bipedal locomotion though the anatomy of its foot and femur suggests that it was semi-terrestrial and still would have been a climber. The main driving force in evolution of bipedalism is believed to have been carrying. These models result in the greatest degree of bipedal activity in both chimpanzees and bonobos. Precision hands are seen in Oreopithecus (considered a close relative of Dryopithecus) which provides a basis for combining bipedality with this selection pressure. M. bishopi appears to be more derived than early Pronconsulids yet primtive to Oreopithecus and Dryopithecus suggesting an intermediate species also lending support to the emergence of both traits in tandem. Indeed Oreopithecus is considered more derived and 'hominid like' by some, due to being somewhat bipedal with precision hands, yet as also retaining 'ape like' traits primitive to Dryopithecus.

So bipedality appears to be a trait that has emerged rather slowly, as would be expected, over many ancestral species before becoming our main form of locomotion at the expense of all else. Evolution doesn't happen in a vacuum and there are a variety of explanations for what selected for bipedality i.e. carrying as I mentioned, change in environment, improved economy of movement etc. However the reasons why aren't to be discussed here. Whats interesting to me is what these effect these changes themselves have.

Conclusion
Locomotor activity has evolved significantly passing through stages including; arboreal pronogade quadrupedalism, brachiation and suspension, semi-terrestrial quadrupedalism before the emergence of semi and then fully habitual bipedality in response to selection pressures. This evolution and the morphological adaptations that permitted this potentially sheds light upon the high prevalence of back pain in Homo sapiens.

Next post will examine the structural changes in the lumbar spine and pelvis in the context of the different evolutionary stages of primate locomotion.

(Serious) Side Note:
During reading the research for this series I have found my self intrigued learning a lot more than I had planned. But apparently all of this is completely wrong anyway, lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw6P4xmEFU0
Oh go on then, why not one more funny one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwuYvN2U_2M

"Fat Tax" - Faulty premise and a disregard for rationality and liberty

2010-11-11T09:17:00.000-08:00

The news just keeps churning out absolute gems of stupidity recently. A post by Dr Briffa brought to my attention that our current government is actually seriously considering the implementation of a 'Fat Tax.'

Dr Briffa covers the faulty premise that fat makes you fat in his post. Its been discussed elsewhere by Anthony also, I've discussed some idea's on carbs and proteins role in body composition previously, and if any readers have spent any time reading any of the well thought out blogs on low carb and paleolithic nutrition, read Gary Taubes book etc. then you will be more than well aware of how bullshit the whole idea is. So in light of that I won't attempt to reinvent the wheel here by regurgitating what others have already so eloquently put. I suggest you read that for yourself and instead I want to draw peoples attention briefly to the other issue with this tax.

The issue is one with MORALITY.

Its already been mentioned in the media that many have rallied against the idea of a fat tax in that it represents a further control on choice. Now for some this may be a minor issue as it is for 'the good of our society', but that is not the point. No one has the right to impede mans right to liberty, and this is exactly what this, or any other tax for that matter does. No one has the right to force the choice to eat a certain way down any ones throat.

Some might argue that I'm just pissed off because the price of my butter, cream, meat etc. will be going up if this comes into play. Well I'll state it here that I would be as much against this taxation if the conventional thinking were reversed and instead a taxation was placed on grain products or industrial vegetable and seed oils.

Yes there is an issue with the dogmatic and willfully irrational thinking that embeds the conventional nutritional wisdom. But the real issue, the real thing that disgusts me, is the breach of liberty. My choice to eat what I damn well please and to take the consequences of that as my own is exactly that, MY OWN.

Think it will help reduce the cost to the NHS? It might. But then I wouldn't expect society to have to pay for my mistakes should I fall victim to disease's that may be caused by diet, so why the hell should everyone expect it? Maybe the ones suffering today from the recommendations perpetrated by the quacks in charge of nutritional (mis) information are entitled to something. But then perhaps like many others they should have asked the question, why should I eat like that, and what evidence do you have to support that recommendation?

Statin Madness

2010-11-09T15:10:00.000-08:00

Today's headlines regarding a newly published study about statin use read something along the lines of 'New wonder statin 'could save thousands' at risk of heart attacks or strokes' blah blah blah. What as usual the media fail to report to the unwitting masses is that the study performed was an epidemiological study (read, cannot define cause and effect), and that the findings from previous studies (also all epidemiological in nature) present inconsistent findings.

There is zero, zip, zilch, nada any conclusive evidence that statins will help prevent heart disease in any form. Heck they may even increase your risk not to mention the side effects associated with them. Check out Chris Kresser's series on statins for the full synopsis.

Just a quick post really to make me feel like I'm at least putting something here (believe me I am writing more substantial posts, please be patient) and to point out that media science reporting is as usual highly misleading.

Overuse injuries to the lower back from running

2010-10-25T08:53:00.000-07:00

Chris at Conditioning Research recently pointed out a new study looking at risk factors for lumbar disc disease. One of the interesting finds in the study was the (non-significant) negative relationship between strength training and lumbar disc disease.

However another interesting finding that I pointed out in the comments was that a (again non-significant) positive relationship between excessive endurance exercise and lumbar disc disease existed, and that there was an apparent dose-response relationship shown in females.

In looking for a three dimensional kinematic model for the lumbar spine during gait I recently came across a paper where the introduction, I felt, perfectly explained the unexpected and un-noted finding of the EPILIFT study.

The compressive loads that the lumbar spine must deal with during high impact sports such as running are enormous. 2.7-5.7 times body weight is reported, which, for those who think the loadings of resistance training for the lumbar spine are excessive, running is rather more excessive. The high levels of repeated compressive loadings are more in tune with McGill's research on flexion extension cycles and herniation (see my previous post).

Here's the full text for if anyone wants to have a read. The rest of the paper may not be that exciting for everyone however.

Humans may be predisposed to low back pain (still working on my evolutionary post), and in our past chronic cardio wouldn't have constituted much of our time. Now it looks like we can notch another thing onto the list of disadvantages chronic cardio has to its name.

Magical Raw Milk - Where has it gone and how do I get it?

2010-10-16T07:49:00.000-07:00

Ok this is a quick post just because it has made my day. I'll be back to back's with my lumbar spine evolution post next, promise.

Raw milk really is a health promoting food. The Weston A. Price foundation have a campaign in America to promote it and Chris Masterjohn has recently posted on its wonderful ability to boost glutathione production.

Raw milk was a mainstay in the UK up until around the 1950's where its sales sharply declined due to fears of E.coli, TB and other nasties. More recently however people are beginning to see the merit in drinking raw milk again and sales have picked up a little. But there is a big pain in the ass getting in the way of people who want easy access to good, healthy raw milk.

I just got off the phone to a local dairy farmer as I was looking for somewhere to get hold of raw milk. He proceeded to inform me that all sale of raw milk was now illegal. Strange? I'm sure only a few months ago I got hold of some. Dismayed I thought I would take a few moments to look over the legislation to see whether he was fobbing me off. Apparently it turns out he was. The Food Standards Agency clearly details the requirements for sale of raw milk, and I am reliably informed (my brother was at the diary farm in question earlier this year for work experience) that the farm met all the pre-requisites.

Anyway, I was pretty annoyed. But I was adamant that if I wanted to purchase raw milk I was going to purchase raw milk. So that's when I managed to get hold of Meadow Cottage farm. This is the farm that I purchased raw milk from at the farmers market before. They haven't had any for a while now. I got hold of them and had a nice chat. The lady I spoke to explained that the reason they hadn't had any was because they were in the process of re-doing all the tests required to be able to sell it. In fact yesterday saw the return of their herds TB results. All clear. Brilliant. So whenever I want raw milk now all I need to do is give her a call and she'll set aside however much I want and bring it with her when she comes to the farmer market in Winchester (every 1st and last Sunday of the month).

Hopefully I'll never be without raw milk and its health promoting properties again, yay! However it would be nicer to have easier access to it when I want it. Perhaps I will talk to the lady from Meadow Cottage to try and find out whether there is a UK campaign for Raw Milk.

Here I go........

2010-10-11T00:28:00.000-07:00

So my PhD has now officially started. All the work I have put into it up until now has been me getting a head start and preparing. 3 years is all I've got to get 3 big randomised controlled trials completed and written up, and also an in depth literature review of the whole area of chronic lower back pain with emphasis on the specifics of my proposed research.

The reason I am mentioning this is that I don't intend on allowing myself to become distracted from this work. I fully intend to put my 100% effort into this endeavour and as such posting on here will become rather limited certainly for the foreseeable future. I apologise in advance to my small contingent of readers.

But all is not lost. As I said posting will become few and far between, however for those who take an interest in CLBP the majority of future posts will certainly be regarding this topic (well I'll be spending most of my waking days reading and critiquing the literature so why not share my thought on here too). I may post on other topics sporadically, however do not expect any thing near to an in depth critique of whatever it is that provides me a spark of interest.

3, 2, 1, Here I go....................

Grass Fed or Grain Fed? omega-6:3 ratios

2010-09-25T08:40:00.000-07:00

A bit of a debate has been going on over at EvMed forum regarding the nutritional value of grass and grain fed meat, more specifically the free fatty acid (FFA) profile's. BillyE cited a recent review of the topic by Daley and colleague's. For a while I've been an advocate of the grass fed camp, if not for my own health reasons at least in interest of the animals welfare. In fact I commented that animal products that have been fed their natural diet are healthier. This review however has caused me to question to evidence supporting this and whether or not my efforts to mainly consume grass fed meat are worth it as it's more often than not quite expensive.

The Daley et al article covers the wide spectrum that encorporates the FFA profile of animal products. I'm interested though in the evidence for omega 3:6 ratio's in grass and grain fed meats. Daley and colleagues claim that an omega 6:3 ratio of 1-4:1 is healthy, I'd love to see a definitive reference, I don't think I will, but most of the community seem in general agreement with this kind of range. Its clear though that excess omega 6's are detrimental to health, in no way tie in with our evolutionary past, and the amount of omega 3's we need are dependant on the amount of omega 6 in the diet. I recommend reading Chris Kresser's (of The Healthy Skeptic) series on essential fatty acids for a whole view of this area. With that in mind I find the recommendation's made by Daley et al interesting. Table 2 shows the significant difference in 6:3 ratio between grass and grain fed beeves. They recommend however that if eating grain fed you should opt for the fattier cuts as this will increase intake of omega 3's. They seem to have completely ignored the fact that earlier in the paper they claimed the ratio should be 1-4:1. I'm pretty sure that the ratio will stay the same even if you consume more. The average ratio for grain fed based upon the studies included in the review is 7.65:1, grass fed is 1.53:1. Their focus seems to be more upon just increasing omega 3 intake, instead of balancing out the ratio.

Another interesting review from Loren Cordain and colleagues shows the average 6:3 ratio of grain fed beeves to be 5.19:1 and grass fed to be around 2.22:1. Additionally most wild species don't differ significantly from those values and tend to fall smack bang in the middle. This review gives much the same story. The 6:3 ratio of wild animals is probably more representative of the typical game our ancestors would have hunted. Perhaps the grain fed ratio isn't really that bad. Also the fact that the 6:3 ratio of grain fed meat isn't significantly different from the the upper range of 4:1 makes me wonder whether its really contributing much at all to throwing out of whack our bodies balance. All the reviews clearly show that grain fed beeves have less total PUFA's and more SFA's than grass fed. This could be considered a benefit of eating grain fed over grass fed as excess PUFA in any form isn't good. The slightly higher 6:3 ratio of grain fed could be inconsequential. Pork has a high 6:3 ratio compared with other meats, but the Okinawans have great health whilst eating loads of it, along with using lard for almost all cooking.

With regards to effect upon health it's difficult to tell whether its really worth the hassle and extra cost procuring grass fed meats. Most traditional and indigenous populations consume wild or pastured animals, but they also avoid the big neolithic agents responsible for most of the diseases of civilisation such as sugars, grains and seed/vegetable oils. It therefore makes comparison of grass and grain fed meats in the diet difficult to compare. Too many other variables.

Sure eating foods higher in omega 3's increase our levels of omega 3. The Inuit have a 3:6 ratio (reported the other way round for this article) of around 0.57:1. Most of their omega 3 intake comes from marine mammal fat such as seals, rather than fish and shellfish. But seals also have higher amounts of omega 6's than shellfish. Does this mean that the 6:3 ratio of meats doesn't have much of an effect on health? Maybe. Would the Inuit still have great health if they were to add other neolithic agents into their diet? Probably not. Inuit introduced to westernised foods tend to get the same diseases as western people do.

From an ethical perspective feedlot farming methods don't appeal to me at all. They are also extremely unsanitary which may be the main reason that antibiotics are used more often in grain fed animals. A grain based diet probably makes them more susceptible to bacterial gut infections, but I wouldn't like to say one is more responsible than the other. However there doesn't seem to be any conclusive evidence that antibiotic treated animals are bad for consumption.

In conclusion I think that the position you take on grass and grain fed farming methods has to be dictated by your financial and ethical position rather than whether one is healthier than the other. Because the simple answer is that we don't really know.

Carbs, Protein, Fat Gain & Hypertrophy

2010-09-03T14:00:00.000-07:00

Anthony over at The Dream Lounge has recently commented on his theory regarding fat as the main regulator of body composition and mainly discusses the implications of both fat and protein in maintaining and developing lean body mass. The subsequent discussion and a bit more reading for myself has resulted in me having a few thoughts of my own. A few people seem to think that insulin aids hypertrophy and as such carbohydrates should be consumed for best results. This post is going to discuss the roles that both carbohydrates, protein and also insulin potentially play in mediating body composition, both fat and lean mass.

Alot of people are now aware of the lipogenic nature of carbohydrates, their subsequent blood glucose high, insulin spike, and fat storage. Great. However a number of people misinterpret the carbohydrate hypothesis of fat gain to instead be the insulin hypothesis of fat gain. For example, James Krieger goes on about how insulin has been given a bad name alot here and here. I'm inclined to agree with him, however not on the basis of what he presents. There are many problems in his posts regarding insulin's causing fat storage. For example he doesn't consider the reesterification of free fatty acids (FFA) after entering the adipocyte. Triglycerides cannot pass through the cell membrane and instead have to be broken down into FFA's. Esterification of these FFA's back into triglycerides means they can stay in the adipocyte. Krieger references an article to show that breakdown of stored triglycerides is inhibited not just in response to insulin but also to fat. What he fails to notice is that although the study showed hormone sensitive lipase (HSL) to be inhibited, lipoprotein lipase (LPL) was increased as was FFA release from adipoctyes, and FFA release from muscle was unchanged. What this just shows is that the triglycerides that were either just eaten or taken intravenously were broken down to FFA's meaning they could come and go from the adipocytes and are available for energy. No change in the muscle FFA release just goes to show which tissue is using more energy.

"There was increased escape of LPL-derived fatty acids into the circulation from adipose tissue, shown by lack of reesterification of fatty acids"

This is important because it allows me to begin making the point I want to. That most critics of the carbohydrate hypothesis think it's just about insulin. Its not. Reesterification of fatty acids is a very important part in fat gain. It seems to me to be why protein, despite it being a very potent stimulator of insulin, fails to cause fat gain. Krieger cites a number of articles to show this. One consistent finding is that protein stimulates insulin, even before gluconeogenesis occurs, just as much as carbohydrates yet without the increase in blood sugar. This I think is key as to why carbohydrates are uniquely lipogenic. Without the subsequent increase in blood glucose there is also no production of alpha glycerol phosphate. Thus although insulin may be decreasing the rate of lypolysis, FFA's aren't getting trapped in adipocytes when the insulin spike is caused by protein. So that's great, protein doesn't seem to cause fat gain. I can continue chomping down on cheese and meat.

But why in the hell does protein consumption stimulate insulin secretion in the first place?

Well this brings me onto my next point. I've heard it said before that because insulin stimulates protein synthesis you need to eat carbs in order to promote the greatest hypertrophic response. Well this is partly true. Insulin mediates a whole host of upstream and downstream regulators of mammalian target of rampamycin (mTOR) (Great review here). But none of this shows that more insulin, vis a vis carb consumption means more muscle. It might do. But the fact that people with chronic hyperinsulinemia due to insulin resistance through excess carb consumption are fat and have both atrophied muscle and organs leads me to think that more is not necessarily better. Instead based upon the mechanisms by which insulin mediates mTOR I'm led to believe that the whole reason is in order to transport amino acids derived from protein intake to the muscle where it also stimulating protein synthesis for them to be used.

So to sum up.

Carbohydrates are uniquely fattening in that they stimulate insulin and also result in stored triglycerides through reesterification
Protein is not fattening, despite stimulating insulin and inhibiting HSL, due to the lack of alpha glycerol phosphate in order to reesterify FFA's

Protein stimulates protein synthesis through increased availability of amino acids and also activation of mTOR pathway through insulin.

Back Pain in Indigenous Populations - A possible refutation to the psychosocial model of back pain?

2010-08-03T11:59:00.000-07:00

Many experts and authors on the topic of back pain today seem content with the idea that in the majority of cases it's all in the head, so to speak. The psychosocial theories of back pain centre around how pain is perceived and what psychological factors may be causing disability, and also what social factors are driving its prolonging or recurrence. Factors such as compensation systems, medicalisation of society etc. (Western Medicine) are claimed to be the main cause. If these factors were the cause of an estimated 85% of non specific back pain in western civilised countries then we might expect that in populations without such factors we would consistently see a much lower prevalence of back pain. This doesn't appear to be the case. When we examine observational studies of indigenous or rural populations we see rates of back pain ranging from very low to almost as high as that in the western world.

Studies in Australian Aborigines range from less than 20% prevalence to around 70% prevalence. The earliest published study I could find showed that half of the Aborigines observed suffered with back pain. Two studies by Vindigni and colleagues show that as well as prevalence of acute back pain being high, there is also a considerable rate of chronic occurrence. The first study showed 39% to be suffering from back pain during the 7 days leading up to it, with 64% complaining that it was the main musculoskeletal condition they suffered from for more than 7 weeks. The second study demonstrated the commonly acknowledged link between previous history of back pain and its recurrence. Taking this into account, it may be likely that the figures recorded were underestimated, as both were only 7 day observations and some may have not been suffering from at the point of observation but had a previous history of chronic pain.

As mentioned, some studies have shown very low rates of prevalence in indigenous populations. A large survey (see pg 135 for graph) of Australian Aborigines showed a rate of prevalence of around 20%. Interestingly though this was still higher than those in non-rural populations. There may be some explanation for low rates reported in that pain is expressed and dealt with differently in different cultures. Clare Fenwick has written an article regarding this here. The finding that both rural and non-rural populations back pain prevalence was low could be both attributed to a culture difference when compared to westernised society. However its still interesting that the Aborigines still suffered more. Its also been called to attention that methodological differences in epidemiological studies could account for the disparity.

Other rural and indigenous cultures similarly show that back pain is very common.

Nayha et al, 1991 - Finnish Reindeer Herders - 60%
Daerga et al, 2003 - Sami Herders - 35%
Barrero et al, 2006 - Rural Chinese - 64%

To my mind, the finding that back pain is still prevalent even when supposed 'causative' social factors are not present is evidence enough to suggest that these factors do not impact back pain as much as most think. I am not saying that they do not impact it at all, just that back pain in my opinion would appear more likely to have an organic origin. Psychological and social factors have an impact upon how someone deals with the pain and may have an impact upon whether or not they catastrophise or 'play up' for the system. However I feel this is probably secondary to to occurrence of pain. At some point I'll be writing an article covering human spinal evolution to discuss whether or not there is an inherent biomechanical factor that may predispose humans to back problems. It strikes me as interesting that populations usually found to be so healthy due to their keeping in with a more primal evolutionary based diet should at the same time suffer from another problem more commonly thought to be associated with civilisation.

Poisson or Poison? Where does your food come from?

2010-07-30T15:05:00.000-07:00

We've had a bag of frozen white fish fillets in the bottom of our freezer for some time that my dad bought. So today I decided to make a delicious Thai green chilli and coconut soup with them. I wasn't too sure what they were and assumed either cod or haddock or something similar. After defrosting, preparing and eventually adding them to my soup I noticed the top of the packet read - Pagnasius Fillets. Hmmm, whats pagnasius? I thought I'd do a quick google search, what I found resulted in me ditching the soup. The fish are almost exclusively farmed in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam which is one of the most polluted river systems in the world. To say these fish are inedible is an understatement, they are quite literally full of poison. A documentary has been made about their farming (sadly in french), however a link here from DietMindSpirit summarises it.

It hit me hard thinking that I had no idea where this supposed food had come from. I feel it's important to understand where your food comes from, both from a health, moral and economical perspective. I try to make sure I purchase local meat that's free range as often as possible and I'll always quiz the farmer or butcher on the methods used for rearing. An animal that has been pastured is healthier for us to consume, and will have spent their life in far better condition than if factory farmed. Buying local also supports local economy and helps local small scale farmers to compete with larger, subsidised factory farming.

The pagnasius fish doesn't hit any of these marks. So to make me feel a little better I had a big bowl of organic berries that I picked with a big helping of local raw cream, yum! Much better.

Checklist for causality and transparent reporting of randomised controlled trials.

2010-07-12T05:15:00.000-07:00

I'm just finishing the book Bad Science by Ben Goldacre (more on this in a later post) in which he mentioned two items that I thought were worth a look at. The first was Austin Bradford-Hill's Criteria for Causation (see here for wiki, here for a bit more explanation). This checklist defines the necessary evidence required in order to determine a - causal - relationship between two variables. As any good scientist or critical thinker will know an association does not merely imply causality, nor does the isolation of the effect of x variable on y variable in vitro imply that such an effect will occur in vivo. Various forms of research are needed in order to determine causality and the underlying mechanisms beyond reasonable doubt. Epidemiology is great for hypothesis generation but no alot else, beyond that we need lab data to understand biological plausibility and the highest level of evidence in the form of double- blinded placebo controlled randomised trials to determine causality.

So onto these trials. The reporting of these trials often lacks consistency and this can create a lot of work in interpreting the data within them. Methodology are often lacking and sometimes the title does not even refer to the study as being an RCT in the first place which makes systematic reviews a real ballache. So here comes the second item I was drawn to find. The CONSORT Guidelines. These guidelines were created in order to try and create transparency in the way RCT's are reported.

I was already aware of the majority of items contained in Bradford-Hill's Criteria of Causality, however the CONSORT Guidelines are new to me. I'll be incorporating them immediately into my own academic research endeavours and would recommend that any publishing academics reading this have a look and do the same. Following them will save alot of time for those appraising your research and hopefully improve the quality of what is published

Side Note: For those conducting randomised controlled trials utilising treatments such as exercise or physical therapy check out the following reference.

Dvir, Z., 2007. Muscle performance enhancement in some non orthopaedic conditions: Evidence based on modified randomised controlled trials. Isokinetics & Exercise Science. 15, pp 1 - 9

Sorry the article was passed on by a colleague and I can't find the full text online. It covers the issues with blinding and placebo comparisons for such interventions.

Wish I had thought of this.

2010-07-06T08:12:00.000-07:00

Thinking back to a previous post where I mentioned the fact I had no one in the running for the UK elections that I would even dream of voting for. I just wish I had thought of the idea this guy had in Poland.

We need more people fighting for freedom in the UK and other countries as well as in the US.

Edit: Also see this documentary posted by Anthony over at The Dream Lounge. An absolute MUST SEE for everyone.

Unfounded fears regarding exercise for the lumbar extensors.

2010-06-24T14:33:00.000-07:00

Stuart McGill (pictured right) is professor of spinal biomechanics at University of Waterloo, ON, Canada. McGill is one of the proponents of the motor control/stability methods of treating and preventing CLBP. This being said he is also quite outspoken regarding his views on dynamic resistance training for the lumbar extensors i.e. the MedX Lumbar Extension. This is clear in his text Low Back Disorders. The worry he and other authors seem to have comes from the fact that disc herniation has the potential to occur when the spine is in either the flexed or extended position and under load. Theoretically this seems reasonable, in these positions the muscles are placed in their biomechanically weakest positions with regard to the length/tension relationship. Also as the spine flexes and extends the compressive force on the intervertebral discs moves to the either the posterior or anterior portion of the annulus and results in a bulging on the opposite side, a perfect scenario for herniation or other injury to occur. Or so you would think.

One of McGills opening explanations is that injury occurs when external loading exceeds our ability to resist it.

This would seem intuitively obvious and I am not for one minute disregarding it, yet the caveats of the motor control/stability approach proclaim this as the reason why we shouldn't ever load the lower back for fear of injury. The problem comes when we actually examine the research that those against resistance training for the lumbar extensors provide, specifically with regard to the above mentioned disc injury mechanics. It becomes apparent that there is little evidence to support these fears.

McGill provides two main references to support his belief that resistance training for lumbar extension should be a no go. Both are questionable in the context of the biomechanics of the human spine. The first is a study examining the effect of magnitude and duration of compressive spinal loading on apoptosis in the intervertebral disc i.e. degenerative disc, I assume with the implication that it further enhances cracks in the annulus and potentially lead to further herniation. Firstly the model used was a mouse tail disc. Now I don't have too much of a problem with animal models that examine physiological parameters, however when examining biomechanical parameters the application of the results to a completely anatomically different species (namely humans) is questionable. The compressive loadings used are not comparable to loadings experienced by the human spine. The second study looks at the effect of repetition cycles under loading on the risk of disc herniation. Once again using an animal (porcine) model.

A couple of other things seem to have been ignored from these studies when cited to support the argument against resistance training for the lumbar extensors. It results in a bit of a straw man type argument. The first study examines spinal loading from between 1-7 DAYS!!! The second examines flexion cycles upwards of 5000!!! I'm not sure if McGill has actually read the MedX rehabilitation guidelines but nowhere does it mention performing such high volume activity.

McGill comments that ''the evidence suggests that compressive loading involving lower compressive loads stimulates healthy bone (noted as a correlate of disc health) but that excessive loading leads to tissue breakdown'' - Low Back Disorders. Evidence Based Prevention and Rehabilitation, 2007.

In a 1992 meeting of the ACSM, Michael Pollock and colleagues presented research showing that training using the MedX actually improved bone mineral density in the elderly and that increases correlated with increases in strength for the group training. Interestingly the BMD results suggested that the changes were significant in trabecular bone. Trabecular bone is found on the interior of the vertebrae. This is interesting as degeneration in bone marrow (Modic Changes) can occur due to vertebral body leakage through the end plate into the vertebrae. It has also been shown to correlate with herniation (see here). Also the subjects participating in this study were taking part in an active treatment protocol involving exercise, yet the prevalence of modic changes increased after 14 month follow up. Perhaps heavy loading actually improve bone and disc health where other excercise failed to even maintain it.

When heavy deadlifts have been examined (cited by Mooney in Movement, Stability & Lumbopelvic Pain, 2007), the compressive loads on the spine are very high yet injury only occured as a result of failure in motor control (by as little as 0.5deg fault in flexion), evidence suggesting that it is not the compressive loadings that cause injury, but loss of control whilst being loaded. This doesn't mean that the exercise we should recommend is motor control based exercises. Drew Baye has posted an article by Professor Eyal Lederman providing a review of such motor control/stability exercise. It doesn't provide any greater improvement than any other form of exercise. My guess is the improvements weren't from the specific motor skills practiced but resulted from the mechanical work performed by the musculature. Those familiar with Body By Science will be aware of the idea that motor control is specific to the particular movement performed, however adaptations in the musculature from resistance training i.e. hypertrophy, may be more transferable to other movements. In any case, if we consider the above injury model, an improvement in strength will also result in an improved failure tolerance. Injury is possible in any context should a failure in motor control occur, not just when loading is high. In fact additional research by McGill has shown that ample stability is present during tasks requiring high levels of muscular effort and that injury is more likely to occur during low load tasks. Training using a variable cam to match the strength curve of the lower back and performing controlled movements reduces the need for complex motor control and thus reduces the risk of injury through exercise.

The fears regarding damage to the discs whilst performing resistance training for the lumbar extensors appear to be unsupported. The studies do not present an comparable protocol to that performed during MedX treatment or any other exercise treatment for that matter. In my 3 years clinical experience using the MedX I have not once experienced an incidence where disc herniation or other injury has occurred from its use, nor have I heard of this occurring from other clinicians. A dose-response relationship applies to the use of exercise especially in the treatment of musculoskeletal pathologies such as CLBP, even McGill acknowledges this. MedX treatment applies this allowing appropriate recovery and adaptation intervals between sessions. McGill doesn't present any evidence to support the notion that low loading improves bone health, in fact there may be reason to believe that high load exercise for the isolated lumbar extensors actually improves bone and disc health. Some authors have speculated that flexion/extension cycles may actually help to 'rehydrate' the discs, possibly through the variances in pressure created across the annulus with each cycle (I remember Chrisopher Norris mentioning this in his book Back Stability). It may also be the case that positive adaptation in the discs occur as a result of properly conducted exercise, perhaps explaining why improvement in trabecular bone mineral density occurs from lumbar extension training, or certainly why it did not decrease. This is a hypothesis I am looking to test during my PhD and will likely comment further on sometime in the future.