FitBits
Exercise ETC's
Review of Exercise Related Research
July 15, 2010
Compiled by Chris Marino, MS, CSCS
Director of Education, Exercise ETC
Save
50% on ALL
Women's Health & Fitness Correspondence Courses!
www.exerciseetc.com/specials.html
Sign up to Follow Exercise ETC
on Twitter & Get a FREE Webinar!
http://twitter.com/ExerciseETC
New Heart Rate Formula May Improve Program Design for Women
The use of heart rate to predict and monitor exercise intensity is common amongst exercisers of all types, from endurance athletes to cardiac rehab participants. Although heart rate remains the best option available for gauging intensity there remain questions regarding the validity of the many equations available to predict target heart rate for training. The maximum heart rate (HRmax) formula that currently serves as the foundation for prescribing intensity is 220 minus age. Two studies over the past decade address both gender and age-related drawbacks to this formula.
First, approximately 8 years ago, researchers at the University of Colorado reported that the HRmax formula was not valid for individuals over 40. They determined that the predicted decline in HRmax that occurs with age is considerably slower after the age of 40 than before. Hence, they developed the following formula which is believed to offer a more accurate prescription for an older population: 208 – (Age x .7).
This past month it was reported that the traditional HRmax formula results in an inflated exercise heart rate for women. In this study of over 5,400 women, participants completed a maximal treadmill test after which they were followed for a period of 16 years. The data collected from the project determined an association between risk for heart attack and abnormal heart rate readings during the previous treadmill test. Moreover, it resulted in a new formula to calculate maximum heart rate in women:
206 – (Age x .88).
Researchers determined that women who were programmed based on the original max HR formula were unable to sustain predictably manageable intensities (i.e. 65-85% max HR). The new formula predicts a lower max HR and thus lower relative HR’s for women.
This study presents an interesting challenge to fitness professionals. Although it is acceptable, should you choose to incorporate the new formula, which results in a lower relative intensity, do the client's results suffer? If so, it may be more appropriate to first use the newer formulas, continue to incorporate HR monitoring, but to include perceived exertion to modify intensity on an individual basis.
Tara Parker-Pope. Recalibrated Formula Eases Women’s Workouts. NY Times Health Update. July 5, 2010.
Is BMI Obsolete?
The Body Mass Index (BMI) is a value placed on the relationship between an individual’s height and weight. BMI value is based on a simple paradigm with respect to health and risk for disease. If there are two individuals of equal height and one individual is significantly heavier, the BMI will indicate a greater risk for poor health for the heavier person.
From its inception the Body Mass Index has been questioned in its ability to accurately predict health risks and estimate body fat. The BMI has numerous flaws. For one, it fails to account for the lean body mass and fat mass ratios in assessing healthy weight. The upside to BMI, however, and the primary reason why it remains a mainstream tool for healthcare professionals has everything to do with its simplicity in comparison to other measurements such as body fat testing, or anthropometrics. There may be a new option on the horizon.
In a study recently published in the journal Pediatrics, researchers from the University of Michigan determined that a child’s neck circumference was equally effective as a predictor of disease in adulthood as the waist measurement and BMI.
Researchers assessed anthropometrics, or body circumferences in more than 1100 children ages 6 to 18. Neck circumference was determined based on the widest measurements attained at the neck.
Upon review, correlations were found between Neck Circumference and BMI values previously associated with diseases such as obstructive sleep apnea, diabetes, or high blood pressure in adults.
In an interview with the researchers, the authors suggest that one major drawback of using BMI is that it does not address abdominal adiposity directly whereas neck measurements are directly linked to waist measurements.
In addition, the researchers felt that neck measurement would present a more meaningful value to patients compared to the BMI. They recognize that because the patient does not understand BMI as he/she understands weight or height, the perception of the BMI value is often not sufficiently threatening to instigate behavioral change.
Finally, the reliability of repeat measurements for the neck is greater than the waist measurement, because experts continue to disagree on the best point to record the waist measurement. For example, ACSM uses the smallest measure between the sternum and the navel, however, that value can often be deceptive if the individual carries most of his/her abdominal fat below the navel.
This is an original study. Hence, neck circumference and risk stratification charts are not currently available. However, you should expect to see these become available in the near future. In the meantime, rely on direct measurements of body fat along with anthropometric measurements to predict health risk in clients.
Madison Park. Can Neck Measurement Indicate Body Fat Better than BMI? CNN.com July 6, 2010.
Interrupted Practice Better for Skill Development
One of the biggest challenges for an individual starting a strength-training program is learning the basic lifts or movements. From age to muscle imbalances, and time constraints the ability to memorize the intricacies associated with lifts such as the squat, lunge or press can either lead to a sense of enjoyment or discomfort with exercise. Moreover, results are based on the capacity to load these exercises. However, if technique is not solid loading is not possible. The challenge for fitness professionals is to understand the best methods for introducing and progressing the lifts to empower clients. A recent study sheds light on part of this process.
Researchers at the University of Southern California recently determined why intermittent practice is associated with better memory of a task than constant practice. Fifty-nine participants performed a challenging arm movement practicing it consistently or in a varied structure with related tasks while brain activity patterns were assessed.
As expected, those who participated in the mixed practice design improved their skill to a greater degree than those who practiced the arm movement consistently did.
Four hours after practicing the task, researchers exposed the participants to magnetic stimulation of either the prefrontal cortex or the primary motor cortex of the brain. This allowed the researchers to map the neural pathways associated with learning and memory of the task. They determined that the broken practice design stimulated the prefrontal cortex to a greater degree than constant practice. The researchers believe that by breaking up task practice you force the brain to initiate learning from scratch each time you repeat the activity. On the other hand, consistent practice only achieves activation in the primary motor cortex, which does not lead to deeper processing and learning.
The findings in this and previous studies support the use of strategies such as supersets and circuit training when teaching new movement patterns. Moreover, the use of complex movements such as multi-directional lunges and Turkish get-ups to name a couple, require greater learning before load can be manipulated to build strength. Strategically placing exercises such as these throughout the workout may facilitate better learning than simply doing 3 sets of 10 repetitions consecutively.
Press Release. Mixed Practice Makes Perfect. University of Southern California. July 12, 2010.
Do
Jumps Trump Weight Training
for Runners?
Developing complimentary strength and power training programs for endurance athletes is a continuing challenge. First, endurance athletes are hesitant to introduce weight training for fear of adding additional body mass, which is assumed to result in slower running.
Second, endurance athletes, many of whom have restrictions on training time, simply can't find time to add additional training. Last, recently researched protocols suggest that low-rep, high load and plyometric-based training have the greatest potential to improve performance.
It's been previously determined that both traditional strength training and plyometric "jump" training improve running economy; one component of running that leads to improved performance. How much or what types of strength and jump training achieve this result continue to be researched.
In a recent study published JSCR, researchers found that plyometrics improved the energy costs of running better than dynamic weight training in well-trained male runners, but can you trust the results?
Thirty-five athletes completed either 8-weeks of plyometric training, dynamic weight training, or no additional training (i.e. control). This training was complimentary to an endurance running program that consisted of two interval-training sessions per week, and one long continuous run weekly.
In addition to running, the plyometrics group incorporated depth jumps from a box, while the weight-training group did squats on a specially designed Smith Machine that eliminated the eccentric component of the lift. Both groups completed between 3 and 6 sets of 8 repetitions with 3-minute recovery intervals just once weekly.
Although both groups improved running economy, the plyometric group improved to a significantly greater degree.
It is interesting to note that the plyometric group incorporated a jumping activity with a significant eccentric component, while they removed the eccentric component from the weight training group. Unfortunately, this structure makes it difficult to formulate a comparison because the two activities were respectively dissimilar. Although support for the use of plyometrics is confirmed in this study, it would be difficult to discount the value of weight training based on the results of this study.
Berryman,
N. et al (2010) Effect of Plyometric vs. Dynamic Weight Training on the
Energy Cost of Running. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
24(7): 1818-1825.
Sign up to Follow Exercise ETC on Twitter & Get a FREE Webinar!
Our new Twitter account is up & running! If you’re not familiar with this great educational tool, it’s the newest, fastest, most user-friendly way around to stay up to date with the latest fitness research, newest exercise guidelines and hottest training trends in our industry. Get short, timely messages from Exercise ETC.
Twitter is a rich source of instantly updated information: You hear about Twitter all the time, and it's the wave of the future, but if you have never seen it for yourself, simply click on this link and check it out: http://twitter.com/ExerciseETC
If you decide you want to follow Exercise ETC on Twitter, signing up is fast, easy and free. Simply click on this link & enter your email address; that's all there is to it! http://twitter.com/ExerciseETC
Better yet, if you sign up between now and Tuesday, July 20 we will send you a coupon code to register for one of our popular Wednesday night webinars (a $19.99 value) for free. This free webinar will allow you to earn 0.2 CECs and/or 2.0 CEUs towards your certification renewal.
What if you hate Twitter? You probably won't, but if you do, no worries! After you get your coupon, you can always remove yourself from the Twitter promotion at any time. No fuss, no obligations, no hard feelings! (And you can still use the free webinar coupon!)
Save 50% on ALL Women's Correspondence Courses!
www.exerciseetc.com/specials.html
Now through July 19 enjoy big savings on our entire selection of women's health & fitness correspondence courses. You can use our home study courses to earn credit for NATA, ACE, CSCS, ACSM, NASM, ADA, NSCA & many more credentials! We also have many more titles on sale at 50% savings. Each program includes a softcover textbook, separate testing booklet and free, instant grading. Here is a sample of the courses we have on sale, for a complete listing, click here:
www.exerciseetc.com/specials.html
Sculpting
Her Body Perfect
Sale: $39.50 Regular: $79.00
Credits: 0.6 ACE; 6.0 ACSM; 6.0 AAAI-ISMA; 3.0 AEA; 6.0 AFPA; 6.0 AMFPT; 0.6 CSCS; 6.0 IFPA; 6.0 ISSA; 0.8 NASM; 3.0 NCSF; 6.0 NDEITA; 6.0 NETA; 6.0 NFPT; 0.6 NSCA-CPT; 6.0 NSPA; 6.0 SCW-EDU; 0.6 SFA; 6.0 WITS.
Action
Plan for Menopause
SALE: $59.50, Regular $119
Credits: 1.0 ACE; 12.0 ACSM; 12.0 AAAI-ISMA; 6.0 AEA; 12.0 AFPA; 12.0 AMFPT; 12.0 IFPA; 12.0 ISSA; 6.0 NCSF; 12.0 NDEITA; 12.0 NETA; 12.0 NFPT; 12.0 NSPA; 12.0 SCW-EDU; 1.2 SFA; 12.0 WITS.
Athletic
Strength for Women
SALE: $79.50, Regular $159
Credits: 14.0 ACSM; 14.0 AAAI-ISMA; 7.0 AEA; 14.0 AFPA; 14.0 AMFPT; 14.0 BOC; 1.4 CSCS; 14.0 IFPA; 14.0 ISSA; 1.0 NASM; 14.0 NATA; 7.0 NCSF; 14.0 NDEITA; 14.0 NETA; 14.0 NFPT; 1.4 NSCA-CPT; 14.0 NSPA; 14.0 SCW-EDU; 1.4 SFA; 14.0 WITS.
Strength
Training for Women
Sale: $10.00, Regular: $20.00
Credits: 2.0 ACSM; 2.0 AAAI-ISMA; 2.0 AEA; 2.0 AFPA; 2.0 AMFPT; 0.2 CSCS; 2.0 IFPA; 2.0 ISSA; 1.0 NCSF; 2.0 NDEITA; 2.0 NETA; 2.0 NFPT; 0.2 NSCA-CPT; 2.0 NSPA; 2.0 SCW-EDU; 0.2 SFA; 2.0 WITS.
Women's
Strength Training Anatomy
Sale: $39.50 Regular: $79.00
Credits: 0.5 ACE; 5.0 ACSM; 5.0 AAAI-ISMA; 2.5 AEA; 5.0 AFPA; 5.0 AMFPT; 5.0 IFPA; 5.0 ISSA; 5.0 NCSF; 5.0 NDEITA; 5.0 NETA; 5.0 NFPT; 5.0 NSPA; 5.0 SCW-EDU; 0.5 SFA; 5.0 WITS.
The Motherwell Maternity Fitness Plan
Sale: $44.50 Regular: $89.00
Credits: 9.0 ACSM; 9.0 AAAI-ISMA; 4.5 AEA; 9.0 AFPA; 9.0 AMFPT; 9.0 IFPA; 9.0 ISSA; 4.5 NCSF; 9.0 NDEITA; 9.0 NETA; 9.0 NFPT; 0.9 NSCA-CPT; 9.0 NSPA; 9.0 SCW-EDU; 0.9 SFA; 9.0 WITS.
Exercise, PMS & Menopause
Sale: $10.00, Regular: $20.00
Credits: 2.0 ACSM; 2.0 AAAI-ISMA; 2.0 ADA; 2.0 AEA; 2.0 AFPA; 2.0 AMFPT; 2.0 CDR; 2.0 IFPA; 2.0 ISSA; 1.0 NCSF; 2.0 NDEITA; 2.0 NETA; 2.0 NFPT; 2.0 NSPA; 2.0 SCW-EDU; 0.2 SFA; 2.0 WITS.
Women, Exercise and Metabolism
Sale: $10.00, Regular: $20.00
Credits: 0.2 ACE; 2.0 ACSM; 2.0 AAAI-ISMA; 2.0 ADA; 2.0 AEA; 2.0 AFPA; 2.0 AMFPT; 2.0 BOC; 2.0 CDR; 0.2 CSCS; 2.0 IFPA; 2.0 ISSA; 2.0 NATA; 1.0 NCSF; 2.0 NDEITA; 2.0 NETA; 2.0 NFPT; 0.2 NSCA-CPT; 2.0 NSPA; 2.0 SCW-EDU; 0.2 SFA; 2.0 WITS.
Exercise
& Women's Health Concerns
Sale: $10.00, Regular: $20.00
Credits: 2.0 ACSM; 2.0 AAAI-ISMA; 2.0 AEA; 2.0 AFPA; 2.0 AMFPT; 1.0 BOC; 2.0 IFPA; 2.0 ISSA; 1.0 NATA; 1.0 NCSF; 2.0 NDEITA; 2.0 NETA; 2.0 NFPT; 2.0 NSPA; 2.0 SCW-EDU; 0.2 SFA; 2.0 WITS.
ACSM's
Action Plan for Osteoporosis
Sale: $59.50 Regular: $119.00
Credits: 1.0 ACE; 12.0 ACSM; 12.0 AAAI-ISMA; 10.0 ADA; 6.0 AEA; 12.0 AFPA; 12.0 AMFPT; 10.0 CDR; 12.0 IFPA; 12.0 ISSA; 6.0 NCSF; 12.0 NDEITA; 12.0 NETA; 12.0 NFPT; 12.0 NSPA; 12.0 SCW-EDU; 1.2 SFA; 12.0 WITS.
We have also have other titles on sale at 50% savings. For a complete listing, click here:
www.exerciseetc.com/specials.html
Sale ends Monday, July 19, 2010.
Please allow 10 - 14 days for delivery.
Sorry, no refunds.
To
unsubscribe or change your options,
scroll to the bottom of this newsletter
and click on the link.
©
2011 Exercise ETC Inc.
(p) 800-244-1344
info@exerciseetc.com