125 Popular Fat Loss Techniques - rated according to risk and benefit.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:28:34 GMT, Green Apple Health wrote:

Ken Kinakin recently wrote a book called "Optimal Muscle Training," which is
all about biomechanics, anatomy, muscle testing, resistance training
technique, and injury prevention. I consider it groundbreaking;

I don't.

because
Kikakin did something rarely seen in the mainstream fitness literatu
Rather than making sweeping generalizations about exercise safety or
usefulness, he analyzed 125 popular weight training techniques and rated
them according to risk and benefit.

Exercises rated according to risk/benefit is without benefit since the
individual's biomechanics, athleticism, knowledge, training regimen etc etc
etc is not considered in thei book. Nor can it be. Take injury prevention.
How in the world would you track that? Do a control study which
purposefully injures some and not others? Everybody who wants to be the
first in that group, raise your hands.

Understanding risks and benefits enhances your training experience by giving
you clearer distinctions, providing you with more choices and helping you
make better decisions. For example, some exercises have low risk and high
benefit, making them excellent choices for almost anyone. Others have high
risk and low benefit, which usually indicates a poor technique best avoided.
There are also exercises with high risk and high benefit, which means the
exercise, while risky, could have high value to advanced trainees under
certain circumstances.

And then there are another hundred or so variations on this theme. Look,
whomever you are, here's the point. I have seen young women who could
effectively snatch bodyweight and have trouble performing a biceps curl.

Here's an example: If you asked a typical personal trainer at a health club
whether it was okay to perform squats with your heels elevated on a board or
wedge, 99% of them would cringe and scream, "That's terrible for you! You'll
blow out your knees! NEVER do squats with your heels elevated - always do
them flat footed." This is a typical "good or bad" judgement, which neglects
to acknowledge the risk to benefit ratio.

OK we agree,; club PTs are morons many of them dangerous; btw, elevated
heel squats are ridiculous and were invented for those who can't do one
flat footed. Which is a training problem since I have never, not once, had
a trainee who could not be taught a flat footed squat.

The risk is greater stress on the knees. The benefits include greater quad
development, less hip involvement, more emphasis placed on the medialis
portion of the quadriceps, a more comfortable position for those who lack
flexibility, and a more upright torso with less stress on the lower back.

Complete BS.

So what does all this have to do with losing fat? Well, I see the same
phenomenon among fitness professionals and practitioners alike when it comes
to judging the usefulness of fat loss techniques (training or dietary),
especially today with the anti-aerobics pendulum having swung all the way to
the right.

It did? I missed that. Wonder why the aerobics classes at gyms I see are
full.

Many people take an all or none attitude, such as "You should NEVER do
cardio on an empty stomach because that causes you to lose muscle" or,
"cardio is completely worthless," or "Low carb diets don't work because they
deplete your glycogen and kill your energy so you can't train hard. Always
eat plenty of carbs."

A better approach would be to analyze each nutrition or training technique
according to its risk to benefit ratio (rather than focusing only on risks,
and denying that any benefits exist). Just like all strength training
activities carry a risk, so do most fat loss techniques.

All human movement has risk, so what? "Most" weight loss...nope, ALL fat
loss has risk. Risk is undeniable in everything we do in these two fields.

What makes an
exercise or nutrition technique worth including in your program is whether
the benefits outweigh the risk given your goals and situation.

Ya' think? And who is going to tell us that? Kinakin? Atkins?

What I'd like to do is review a group of aggressive, extreme and/or
controversial techniques for fat loss which some bodybuilders and fitness
enthusiasts embrace as safe and highly effective, while others claim they're
worthless, dangerous or counterproductive. By weighing the risks and
benefits of each technique, you'll be able to make a much more educated
decision about whether to use these techniques yourself.

Review them? What does that mean? Eat some cookies and lo fat milk and talk
shop?

To read the full article, go to:
http://www.green......snipped ad.

Read it.

Pass.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:28:34 GMT, Green Apple Health wrote:

Ken Kinakin recently wrote a book called "Optimal Muscle Training," which is
all about biomechanics, anatomy, muscle testing, resistance training
technique, and injury prevention. I consider it groundbreaking;

I don't.

because
Kikakin did something rarely seen in the mainstream fitness literatu
Rather than making sweeping generalizations about exercise safety or
usefulness, he analyzed 125 popular weight training techniques and rated
them according to risk and benefit.

Exercises rated according to risk/benefit is without benefit since the
individual's biomechanics, athleticism, knowledge, training regimen etc etc
etc is not considered in thei book. Nor can it be. Take injury prevention.
How in the world would you track that? Do a control study which
purposefully injures some and not others? Everybody who wants to be the
first in that group, raise your hands.

Understanding risks and benefits enhances your training experience by giving
you clearer distinctions, providing you with more choices and helping you
make better decisions. For example, some exercises have low risk and high
benefit, making them excellent choices for almost anyone. Others have high
risk and low benefit, which usually indicates a poor technique best avoided.
There are also exercises with high risk and high benefit, which means the
exercise, while risky, could have high value to advanced trainees under
certain circumstances.

And then there are another hundred or so variations on this theme. Look,
whomever you are, here's the point. I have seen young women who could
effectively snatch bodyweight and have trouble performing a biceps curl.

Here's an example: If you asked a typical personal trainer at a health club
whether it was okay to perform squats with your heels elevated on a board or
wedge, 99% of them would cringe and scream, "That's terrible for you! You'll
blow out your knees! NEVER do squats with your heels elevated - always do
them flat footed." This is a typical "good or bad" judgement, which neglects
to acknowledge the risk to benefit ratio.

OK we agree,; club PTs are morons many of them dangerous; btw, elevated
heel squats are ridiculous and were invented for those who can't do one
flat footed. Which is a training problem since I have never, not once, had
a trainee who could not be taught a flat footed squat.

The risk is greater stress on the knees. The benefits include greater quad
development, less hip involvement, more emphasis placed on the medialis
portion of the quadriceps, a more comfortable position for those who lack
flexibility, and a more upright torso with less stress on the lower back.

Complete BS.

So what does all this have to do with losing fat? Well, I see the same
phenomenon among fitness professionals and practitioners alike when it comes
to judging the usefulness of fat loss techniques (training or dietary),
especially today with the anti-aerobics pendulum having swung all the way to
the right.

It did? I missed that. Wonder why the aerobics classes at gyms I see are
full.

Many people take an all or none attitude, such as "You should NEVER do
cardio on an empty stomach because that causes you to lose muscle" or,
"cardio is completely worthless," or "Low carb diets don't work because they
deplete your glycogen and kill your energy so you can't train hard. Always
eat plenty of carbs."

A better approach would be to analyze each nutrition or training technique
according to its risk to benefit ratio (rather than focusing only on risks,
and denying that any benefits exist). Just like all strength training
activities carry a risk, so do most fat loss techniques.

All human movement has risk, so what? "Most" weight loss...nope, ALL fat
loss has risk. Risk is undeniable in everything we do in these two fields.

What makes an
exercise or nutrition technique worth including in your program is whether
the benefits outweigh the risk given your goals and situation.

Ya' think? And who is going to tell us that? Kinakin? Atkins?

What I'd like to do is review a group of aggressive, extreme and/or
controversial techniques for fat loss which some bodybuilders and fitness
enthusiasts embrace as safe and highly effective, while others claim they're
worthless, dangerous or counterproductive. By weighing the risks and
benefits of each technique, you'll be able to make a much more educated
decision about whether to use these techniques yourself.

Review them? What does that mean? Eat some cookies and lo fat milk and talk
shop?

To read the full article, go to:
http://www.green......snipped ad.

Read it.

Pass.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:28:34 GMT, Green Apple Health wrote:

Ken Kinakin recently wrote a book called "Optimal Muscle Training," which is
all about biomechanics, anatomy, muscle testing, resistance training
technique, and injury prevention. I consider it groundbreaking;

I don't.

because
Kikakin did something rarely seen in the mainstream fitness literatu
Rather than making sweeping generalizations about exercise safety or
usefulness, he analyzed 125 popular weight training techniques and rated
them according to risk and benefit.

Exercises rated according to risk/benefit is without benefit since the
individual's biomechanics, athleticism, knowledge, training regimen etc etc
etc is not considered in thei book. Nor can it be. Take injury prevention.
How in the world would you track that? Do a control study which
purposefully injures some and not others? Everybody who wants to be the
first in that group, raise your hands.

Understanding risks and benefits enhances your training experience by giving
you clearer distinctions, providing you with more choices and helping you
make better decisions. For example, some exercises have low risk and high
benefit, making them excellent choices for almost anyone. Others have high
risk and low benefit, which usually indicates a poor technique best avoided.
There are also exercises with high risk and high benefit, which means the
exercise, while risky, could have high value to advanced trainees under
certain circumstances.

And then there are another hundred or so variations on this theme. Look,
whomever you are, here's the point. I have seen young women who could
effectively snatch bodyweight and have trouble performing a biceps curl.

Here's an example: If you asked a typical personal trainer at a health club
whether it was okay to perform squats with your heels elevated on a board or
wedge, 99% of them would cringe and scream, "That's terrible for you! You'll
blow out your knees! NEVER do squats with your heels elevated - always do
them flat footed." This is a typical "good or bad" judgement, which neglects
to acknowledge the risk to benefit ratio.

OK we agree,; club PTs are morons many of them dangerous; btw, elevated
heel squats are ridiculous and were invented for those who can't do one
flat footed. Which is a training problem since I have never, not once, had
a trainee who could not be taught a flat footed squat.

The risk is greater stress on the knees. The benefits include greater quad
development, less hip involvement, more emphasis placed on the medialis
portion of the quadriceps, a more comfortable position for those who lack
flexibility, and a more upright torso with less stress on the lower back.

Complete BS.

So what does all this have to do with losing fat? Well, I see the same
phenomenon among fitness professionals and practitioners alike when it comes
to judging the usefulness of fat loss techniques (training or dietary),
especially today with the anti-aerobics pendulum having swung all the way to
the right.

It did? I missed that. Wonder why the aerobics classes at gyms I see are
full.

Many people take an all or none attitude, such as "You should NEVER do
cardio on an empty stomach because that causes you to lose muscle" or,
"cardio is completely worthless," or "Low carb diets don't work because they
deplete your glycogen and kill your energy so you can't train hard. Always
eat plenty of carbs."

A better approach would be to analyze each nutrition or training technique
according to its risk to benefit ratio (rather than focusing only on risks,
and denying that any benefits exist). Just like all strength training
activities carry a risk, so do most fat loss techniques.

All human movement has risk, so what? "Most" weight loss...nope, ALL fat
loss has risk. Risk is undeniable in everything we do in these two fields.

What makes an
exercise or nutrition technique worth including in your program is whether
the benefits outweigh the risk given your goals and situation.

Ya' think? And who is going to tell us that? Kinakin? Atkins?

What I'd like to do is review a group of aggressive, extreme and/or
controversial techniques for fat loss which some bodybuilders and fitness
enthusiasts embrace as safe and highly effective, while others claim they're
worthless, dangerous or counterproductive. By weighing the risks and
benefits of each technique, you'll be able to make a much more educated
decision about whether to use these techniques yourself.

Review them? What does that mean? Eat some cookies and lo fat milk and talk
shop?

To read the full article, go to:
http://www.green......snipped ad.

Read it.

Pass.