Science Friday: Why You Should Foam Roll Prior to Exercise

Over the last decade foam rolling has gained popularity as a self-myofascial release technique that works on the same principle as massage. Namely that it reduces any restrictions and adhesions between fascial layers (the connective tissue that surrounds muscles, tendons, bones, etc), but instead of a therapist providing the external pressure to the soft tissue, the user simply places their body weight onto a foam roller to exert pressure on their own soft tissue.

Despite the growing popularity there is limited research into the effectiveness of foam rolling. Proponents chiefly use this technique as a way of increasing range of motion (ROM) prior to exercise and/or to improve post-exercise recovery. Increasing ROM prior to exercise is important for athletes as they must be able to attain an optimal position to maximize their ability to safely produce force. After all, if an athlete can’t raise their arms above their head without compensating through hyperextension of the lower back, or internally rotating the shoulder, then how would they expect to safely press maximal weights overhead?

Traditionally static stretching has been used to increase ROM prior to exercise but several studies have shown that static stretching actually reduces the amount of force that an athlete can produce immediately after stretching. The study I want to discuss today entitled, “An acute bout of self-myofascial release increases range of motion without a subsequent decrease in muscle activation or force“, looked at the immediate effects of foam rolling on ROM and force production.

In this study the subjects were split into one group that foam rolled their quads for two 1 minute sessions with 30 seconds between sessions and another control group that performed no foam rolling. Knee joint ROM was measured before and after (2min and 10min) foam rolling and a number of methods were used to measure quad activation and force production. On average the subjects improved their knee ROM by 11 degrees and 9 degrees when measured 2 minutes and 10 minutes after foam rolling respectively. Obviously there was no similar improvement in the control group.

However, the most interesting part of this study was that there was not a significant reduction in quad force production or activation after foam rolling. In other words, subjects got the benefits of static stretching – increased ROM – without the negative side effect of reduced force production. The authors of the study postulate that this is attributed to the physiological differences between how the ROM is improved for static stretching versus foam rolling. The former places pressure at the insertion points of the muscle and may cause tissue damage while the latter reduces the fascial viscosity to a more gel-like state through mechanical stress of the tissue.

Conclusion: Foam rolling is an effective method for increasing joint range of motion prior to exercise without reducing your muscle’s ability to generate force. You should do it more often…

Originally posted by Jeff Pruitt of CrossFit 316

Crazy CrossFit #2 - Long Distance Running IS Deadly

I have said it for years: do not run long distances. From my perspective, the long distances were a horrible way to train; they tear up the knees, take massive amounts of time and, in general, turn a healthy-looking individual into a decrepit. It is horribly demanding on a person's body, and, as it turns out, it is very likely to be almost as unhealthy as no exercise at all!

No joke.

Did you know, Micah True, the person for whom the book "Born to Run" was written, died on a distance run in March? His heart was so thickened and enlarged, he died of a conditioned called Phiddipides Myopathy. Phiddipides being the name of the original Marathon runner who reported Romes victory over the Persions by running the 26 miles from the City of Marathon to Athens...he died immediately after giving the report.

As it turns out extensive, prolonged exercise (in excess of 60 minutes) literally starts to cook your heart muscles. Over the short-term, as this cardiologist explains, this is not a huge deal; the heart will heal. However, continuous exposure to this type of strain can be deadly. Over time, plaque and scar tissue builds up in the heart and arteries as the heart has to continually heal itself from the damage imposed by these long, extended periods of exercise.

If you are trying to hit a marathon target or actively running more than 20 miles per week, you are causing far more harm than good to your body. I'm not kidding - as you will see in the video, the mortality rate chart looks like a big "U" with extreme endurance work almost equal with those sedentary individuals in the study.

While he does go on to say "pace" too does make a difference, the preponderance of his study suggests short, heart-pumping exercise routines on a regular basis are the best way to go. Sound familiar? Maybe CrossFit IS on to something!

Check out the video.

Science Friday – Olympic Lifting Makes You a Better Athlete - By Jeff Pruitt

By Jeff Pruitt - Originally posted at CrossFit 316

We’ve discussed the idea of power training before  - namely that improving power output creates better athletes. Increasing power output  improves the athlete’s strength, jumping ability, acceleration, etc. Clearly these attributes are desirable in nearly every athletic endeavor. So the question becomes – what is the optimal strength and conditioning program to increase these attributes?

Many coaches and exercise scientists agree that Olympic weightlifting movements are good at improving rate of force development (RFD) but also believe that the movements are difficult to learn and thus the negatives of this learning curve outweigh any potential benefits when compared to other strength and conditioning approaches. This comparison is the focus of a Brazilian paper I want to discuss today entitled “Short-Term Effects on Lower-Body Functional Power Development: Weightlifting vs Vertical Jump Training Programs“. In this paper athletes were put into 1 of 3 groups for an 8 week training period.

• Weightlifting Group (WL) – Half Squat, High Pull, Power Clean, Clean & Jerk
• Vertical Jump Group (VJ) – Half Squat, Hurdle Hops – double leg and alternated single led, 40cm Drop Jump
• Control Group – No Training, only pre and post tests

Participants in each group performed the following tests prior and following their 8 weeks of training: Squat Jump (SJ), Counter Movement Jump (CMJ), 10m and 30m sprint speed, agility test and half-squat 1RM. The results of these tests are quite interesting.

The WL group significantly improved their SJ, CMJ, 10m sprint speed and half-squat 1RM, while the VJ group only improved the CMJ and half-squat 1RM. The VJ training group out performed the WL group only in the 1RM squat. And while strength is certainly correlated to power, the slight improvement in strength for the VJ group did NOT carry over to other tests of power when compared to the WL group.

So only given 8 weeks and using subjects who had never been exposed to olympic weightlifting, the WL group outperformed the VJ training group in nearly every measure of power performance. I think this week’s conclusion is best summarized by the authors themselves:

Conclusion: “Even though Olympic lifting exercises require more time for the learning of specific skills, the short-term training effects seem to be more beneficial for improvement in the performance tests used than in traditional jump training in physically active subjects. The greater skill complexity required for the Olympic lifting exercises facilitates the development of a broader physical abilities spectrum, which seems to be better transferred to performance.”

Greg Glassman talks CrossFit

Greg Glassman, the founder and owner of CrossFit talks at the Illinois Policy Institute in March of 2013. While I'm not a huge fan of the mullet, the one hour and twelve minute (!!) talk is pretty good. It is definitely telling of the early days of CrossFit and how his model for business came to be.

There is also some discussion on the split between him and his wife - and how CrossFit was almost fed to the investment wolves at Goldman/Sachs.

Check it out in chunks...it's a lot to take in one sitting.

Crazy CrossFit #1 - Stupid Shit gives the community a bad name

WTF are you doing?? THIS is fitness?

Let me preface this short article with the fact that I love CrossFit programming - I love the constant variation and combination of lifting, body weight and non-standard exercises (kettlebells, HSPU, sled pulls, etc). I wanted to get that in there because, while I love the idea of CrossFit, sometimes the community of CrossFit is bat-shit crazy. 

Whether it's on high from CFHQ or is just percolated by a need for "one-up-manship", some of the crap that goes on out there by CrossFit trainers is pretty flipping horrendous.

It's not that I dislike the programming style; it's that people take it too far. Da fak is this guy doing? Hula hoop for time? CrossFit circa 2009 was at the top of its game - they had people like Robb Wolf, Greg Everett, John Sheaffer, Mark Rippetoe, CrossFit Football (Power Athlete HQ), Gym Jones (Twight) and a number of other highly skilled, highly educated (former) supporters of the movement. Today they have Reebok and Dave Castro.

Keep it up, Dave. Your spine is not yet splattered across that back wall.

Meaningful, thought provoking advice from the people who bring you shoes:

I don't intend for these posts to be as controversial as, say Beast Modal Domains or anything like that. I interview CrossFitters, I support the methodology and even incorporate CrossFit into my training - but I do not believe for a second it's the only thing keeping me and my followers in shape. 

Technique and skill trumps high rep, low weight every time. Efficacy in moving the weight around should come first and foremost - and that is a message that many CF trainers and MOST new CrossFitters fail to grasp. The newest CrossFitters today are coming into the programming through crap like this:

Or from having watched the CF Games (which I generally watch as well, mind you). The problem with these is they place NO emphasis on the training required to successfully and realistically accomplish these movements.

On top of that, we have people with literally no fitness background "training" other people to focus on speed or weight over function! How beneficial is it going to be to a client if they get that "Rx" by hurting themselves and then being out of training for three weeks???

The bottom line is: the "community" has exploded in the last few years with little or no controls over how the methodology is interpreted by the average box owner. If I were "king for a day" at CFHQ, I would re-assess how affiliates are established by creating a "Level 2" program that required some educational background in the area of physiology, exercise science, sports science (or the like). Make this level 2 a requirement for establishing an affiliate and allow level 1s to be the trainers there. Build foundations, not a house of cards.

That, of course, would severely curtail the $3,000 affiliate fee revenue stream for HQ.

The methodology is effective, but the community continually does stupid shit that undermines any legitimacy the program hopes to find.

Finally - if you're reading this and you feel like I'm slamming you, read it again. I'm not. The community is the basis for WHY CrossFit is a successfully marketed enterprise. It's not unique in the sense that the "snatch" or kettlebell work are new and epic elements of fitness. It's foundation is the community....and right now that community is a little bit out of control.

If you're saying to yourself "Hey, I fall into that category!", you probably should re-assess what you're doing at your box. Take a little bit of time to educate yourself on the physiology of the human body; learn a little about the functions of fitness and the effects of exercise on the body. Don't take your CF cert and think it's the end-all, be-all of your fitness education. It SHOULD BE used as a doorway to further your knowledge and awareness.

Parting Shot: if you have to spend a good portion of your time defending your fitness program, you're either doing it wrong, or there's some room for change and improvement. Which do you think it is?

Science Friday: Should I do Strength & Aerobic Training on Different Days?

We’ve previously looked at a study showing concurrent training (i.e. resistance + aerobic training) as being superior to aerobic training alone. This week I’ll review a study that tries to answer which style or protocol of concurrent training is superior. For example, is it better to separate your strength and aerobic training into completely different days or will performing both on the same day give equal or superior results? According to the study entitled “Effects of Concurrent Exercise Protocols on Strength, Aerobic Power, Flexibility and Body Composition”, the answer is “it depends”. In this study the researchers split the participants into two groups:

Concurrent Distinct Endurance-Resistance (CDER) – 2 strength & 2 aerobic sessions each week performed on different days (i.e. 4d/wk)
Concurrent Parallel Endurance-Resistance (CPER) – 2 strength & 2 aerobic sessions with strength & aerobic on the same day (i.e. 2d/wk)

Each group was tested in numerous categories and the results are shown the table below. In nearly every category both groups showed significant improvement from pre to post tests. However the CPER showed better improvement relative to the control group in nearly every measurement except aerobic power and 60m sprint. And the CPER group showed a statistically significant improvement in body fat percentage compared to CDER.

Conclusion: Concurrent strength and aerobic training will improve performance and body composition. Unless you are a competitive track & field athlete looking to do every last thing you can to maximize aerobic power then you should perform your strength and aerobic training on the same day. This same-day approach will yield better strength and overall fitness when compared to doing strength and aerobic training on different days.  This is yet another reason (here are some more) why at CrossFit 316 we do strength AND metabolic conditioning every day…

Originally posted by Jeff Pruitt, owner of CrossFit 316

Aerobic Exercise + Strength Training = Optimum Body Composition Changes

Written and posted April 19, 2013 by Jeff Pruitt, CrossFit 316

There are a lot of women out there that think that aerobic exercise alone will produce the kind of changes in body composition they want to see. Images of bodybuilders and other strength athletes have them worried that lifting weights will make them too big and bulky. The study we’ll look at this week shows that lifting weights alone will not decrease fat mass and that aerobics alone will decrease fat mass but not increase lean body mass – not exactly new science here. However, a combination of the two led to greater increases in fat loss, lean muscle mass and a substantial decrease in waist circumference, and I think those are all things that women and men would be interested in.

The paper is a relatively controversial study entitled “Effects of aerobic and/or resistance training on body mass and fat mass in overweight or obese adults.” I say controversial because some of the conclusions drawn by the authors have sparked debate but are really immaterial to our review – we’ll simply look at the data and draw our own conclusions!

In this trial the authors randomly placed participants into 3 categories:

Resistance Training (RT) – 3 days/wk; 3×8-12 rep scheme
Aerobic Training (AT) – 12 miles/wk @ 65-80% VO2 max
Resistance Training + Aerobic Training (RT/AT) – combination of both of the above

The following chart shows data from each of these 3 categories. The measured data were weight and fat percent change, lean body mass and waist circumference change and thigh muscle area and fat mass change. This chart reminds me of the Verizon “Easy Choice” commercial where the Verizon rep presents a bunch of different charts to a focus group and they laugh because it’s obvious that Verizon is the best choice given the data presented.

It’s pretty obvious here which protocol is better. RT alone adds muscle mass but does very little for losing fat mass. Conversely AT alone produces fat loss but actually causes a loss in lean body mass which is kind of obvious if you look at the body composition of endurance athletes. The AT/RT group excels in every category – essentially it is a combination of the benefits of both types of training as one might expect.

Now the authors, instead of drawing the obvious conclusion that AT/RT is the optimal choice, argue that AT is better if you balance time commitments vs health benefits since AT/RT involves more workout time per week. This conclusion has been debated ad nauseum on the interwebs so I won’t rehash all those arguments but I will say that scientifically one must define and measure “health benefits” before drawing such a conclusion.

The authors failed to mention that despite the time commitment for AT/RT being 3hrs/week more than AT alone, the dropout rate for the AT/RT group was only 23% compared to 34% for the AT. And guess what the #1 reason for AT dropout was? Yup, time commitment, despite the fact that they were exercising significantly less each week than the AT/RT group. Could it be the monotony of AT training was the cause of the higher dropout rate? That would be my hypothesis given my own personal experience and from coaching others.

Conclusion: Weight training combined with resistance training produces superior body composition changes when compared to doing either mode of exercise by itself. Despite more than double the time exercising the dropout rate for those combining weight training with aerobic training is less than those doing only aerobic exercise. Constantly varied works after all – go figure. Get stronger, get more fit, look better – that’s our goal at CrossFit 316 and that’s why we lift weights AND perform aerobic conditioning…