Army Basic training is finally catching up with the reality of combat and modern exercise physiology.

The article in KC Star notes the Army took an incredibly logical approach in “assessing the skills that are most needed on the modern battlefield and matching them to the muscle groups that are most in need of conditioning.”

As a person who has seen a little combat and knows a little bit about physical fitness, I concluded long ago that military fitness training bears little rational relationship to the type of fitness needed in combat.

A staple of military fitness is the two or three mile run.

In combat operations distance is either covered quickly, as in a sprint to a covered or flanking position, or slowly as in a long patrol lasting all day. Both are done with 50 to 80 pounds of gear on.

The steady pace run does not build the explosiveness needed for quick action in a fire-fight or gritty endurance to walk for eight hours through the mountains of Afghanistan.

It also does nothing for the upper body strength needed to climb walls and the explosiveness needed to traverse terrain and jump obstacles.

“We’ve been training the same way for 30 years and in Iraq or Afghanistan the last eight and a half, but we just did things as we’d always done them,” the Star quotes Wickman as saying.

The changes in physical fitness training in boot camp are a good start, but they need to be carried over into active duty assignments as well.

The next change that needs to be made is in nutrition.

Military rations, MREs and UGR-As, are loaded with sugars and high glycemic carbohydrates and not nearly enough protein to sustain the muscle mass needed for explosive speed.

The key word being ‘naturally’ because the brain can be rewired to accept delayed gratification if properly prompted to think about the long-term rewards.

Researchers from the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany found “that episodic future thinking reduces the rate of delay discounting through a modulation of neural decision-making and episodic future thinking networks.”

“Humans normally prefer larger over smaller rewards, but this situation can change when the larger rewards are associated with delays,” said Dr. Jan Peters the lead author of the study. But when presented with cues about the long term payoff, test subjects delayed gratification.

“…vividly imagining the future reduced impulsive choice,” Peters said.

In the study, subjects had to make choices between an immediate reward and a larger delayed reward. As expected, subjects took the immediate reward. But when promted with cues about the larger delayed reward, more people would opt for the delay in gratification. The more cues, the more a person was willing to delay gratification. The increased cues also caused the subjects to visualize the delayed payoff.

That visualization is a key component to delaying gratification because it provides a virtual ownership of the long-term result.

“To fully appreciate a long-term option, you have to choose it repeatedly and begin to feel the benefits,” said Bradley Love, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas who recently conducted an experiment in delayed gratification.

The experiment found that when the test subjects were given information about what they would have to give up in the short term to get the long-term benefits, they chose the short term.

According to Love, people pick the immediate reward because they know what they are getting.

For a person trying to shed a few pounds of fat before summer, it is hard to say ‘no’ to the cupcake because they know how good the cupcake tastes but do not know how good it will feel to look good at the beach.

In the Hamburg-Eppendorf study, the cues and visualzation were strong enough to overcome the pull of the short term gratification.

Nita Marquez, an IFBB professional fitness competitor and personal trainer says frequent visualization of the payoff is the key to saying no to the cupcake.

“You have to see it and believe it to achieve it,” Marquez said. “You have to see yourself fitting into your favorite jeans, you have to see and feel the confidence of looking better in a swimsuit to take ownership of it.”

And when confronted with the cupcake, “think about how great it will feel to wear your favorite dress or for the guys, to take your t-shirt off at the lake.”

Marquez said if your diet is about self-discipline and deprivation, you will likely fail. “Focus on the satisfaction and pleasure of when you fit into the summer shorts, not the cupcake….unless you are one of those people who really likes showing off their self-control, then do whatever works.”

We all may be initially wired to seek the short term gratification, but with some timely visualization, the cupcake can be defeated.

“Lifting heavy weights makes you big and bulky — or at least that’s the conventional wisdom. It’s the reason many women (and some men) who want slim and “toned” physiques opt for lighter weights, lifted more times. But the notion is not supported by science.”

People who train for “tone” rarely make much progress a “toned” physique because lifting lighter weights for more repetitions does not improve muscle tone as much as it improves mitochondria tone.

Mitochondria are the energy factories within cells. When a person lifts light weights with higher reps, a signal is sent to enhance the mitochondria rather than enhance the muscle tissue.

This effect is most pronounced in cardio vascular endurance training as noted in this review of the peer review literature:

“Prolonged endurance training elicits a variety of metabolic and morphological changes, including mitochondrial biogenesis, fast-to-slow fibre-type transformation and substrate metabolism.”

On the flip side, “heavy resistance exercise stimulates synthesis of contractile proteins responsible for muscle hypertrophy.”

Heavier weights send a signal to the body saying, “build more muscle so we can lift heavier weights” and thus increase muscle tone. The building of the muscle to increase muscle tone, known hypertrophy, burns as many calories, if not more, than the actual weight lifting.

Lighter weights send a signal that says, “enhance the mitochondria so we can move this weight more times.”

Even if a person is doing lower reps, lighter weights may not deliver much results.

This study found that “women may not self-select a relative intensity sufficient to stimulate meaningful improvements in muscular hypertrophy or strength.“

(Men will also not lift heavy enough or hard enough.)

Without hypertrophy, there is no improvement in muscle tone.

If you want to increase actual muscle tone and get the fat burning effects of weight training, lift a weight that is heavy enough you can only perform eight repetitions. This sends the signal to increase muscle tone, not mitochondria tone.

No one should ever fear building too much muscle by accident. It took Nita and I years of intense, deliberate training and precision eating to build as much muscle as we have.

In all our years in gyms and helping people get in better shape, Nita and I have never heard a person say, “I have too much muscle and need to gain some fat.”

To get a toned physique, train to build muscle, not mitochondria.

But how many calories are in a pound of muscle?

Even more interesting, how many calories does it take to build a pound of muscle? What is the added metabolic effect of building muscle? Is fat burned while building muscle?

Nita Marquez, an IFBB professional fitness athelete and coauthor of the Book Fit For Combat, calls weight lifting the triple threat of fat loss. The effort of lifting weights burns calories, more calories are burned to rebuild and increase the muscle tissue and the increased muscle burns even more calories.

The triple threat that weight training provides is often overlooked when people think about losing fat, but peer reviewed research shows that weight lifting is a potent fat burning tool.

In an experiment conducted at the University of Limburg in the Netherlands and published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, researchers found that weight training subjects increased their average daily metabolic rate by 9.5%.

The researchers found the caloric expenditure from the exercise of weight training itself, “could only explain 40% of the increase in ADMR (average daily metabolic rate).”

They concluded, “that weight training, although of modest energy cost compared with endurance training, induces a significant increase in ADMR.”

What then was the 60% increase in AMDR that could not be explained? The calories used to build muscle mass.

In the University of Limburg study, the weight lifting students gained 4.62 pounds of muscle (on average) while losing 4.4 pounds of fat.

Which is why the researchers said in the final line of the report, “[weight training] can be applied as an effective and safe adjunct to exercise based weight-control programs.”

The triple threat to fat posed by weight training is pretty obvious when one looks at the numbers.

MUSCLE MATH

Camille Paglia wrote, “Modern bodybuilding is ritual, religion, sport, art, and science, awash in Western chemistry and mathematics. Defying nature, it surpasses it.”

Paglia was dead on in the mathematics part. (If numbers hurt your brain, just skim the next few paragraphs.)

A pound of muscle equals 454grams. That means a pound of muscle is 454grams of protein. A gram of protein has about 4calories.

A pound of muslce then has about 1,816 calories in it.

The weight training students in the experiment gained, on average, 4.6 pounds. On paper, they would need an additional 8,353 calories to build that muscle, but the experiment found that it took more than twice that many calories to build the muscle.

The Average Daily Metabolic Rate of the weight lifters increased from 12.4MegaJoules a day to 13.5MegaJoules a day (it was a Dutch study, hence the MegaJoules.)

The increase of 1.1MJ is equal to 262 calories.

The exercising students were studied for 18 weeks, which means their increased AMDR was equal to 33,012 calories over the course of the experiment.

Forty percent of that AMDR increase could be attributed to exercise, which leaves 19,808 calories over 18 weeks that went to muscle growth.

But, as noted above the 4.6 pounds of muscle would be only 8,353 calories, leaving 11,455 calories unaccounted for during the 18 weeks, or 91 calories a day.

What were those calories doing? They were building muscle, but not necessarily the 4.6 pounds of muscle gained.

METABOLIC EFFECT OF HYPERTROPHY

When a person lifts weights and trains to maximum failure, it causes micro-trauma to the muscles. Micro-trauma is the little itty bitty tears and pulls that can cause muscle soreness the day after exercise.

If a person is eating enough calories, eating enough protein and getting enough rest, their body will repair the micro-trauma and then add a little bit more muscle.

This process is called musle hypertrophy. A properly designed resistance training program will inflict an amount of micro-trauma on the muscles that the body can fully recover from and add to before the next bout of training.

When a person is in their hypertrophy zone, they are continuously increasing muscle tone, size and strength.

As the researchers at the University of Limburg found, it can have a profound effect on Average Daily Metabolic Rate.

The effect works something like this:

Presume you have “M” amount of muscle. When you work that muscle to maximum failure, the micro-trauma reduces it to “M-1″. During the next few days calories are used to repair the micro-trauma, building the muscle back to the starting point of “M” and then building a little more so that you wind up at “M+1″.

The next week, starting at “M+1″ you inflict enough micro-trauma to bring you back down to “M”. Your muscles repair, building you back to “M+1″ then adding a little more muscle “M+2″.

The 60% increase in ADMR, 157 calories, that could not be explained by exercise is from the process of repairing micro-trauma and building new muscle. Looking at the raw numbers, the repair of micro-trauma alone accounts for 57% of the calories (89 a day) with 43% (67 a day) going to new muscle growth.

The increased muscle (M+1, M+2) also burns a few extra calories every day, completing the triple threat of fat loss which was 4.4 pounds (15,400 calories) for the exercising students.

The math makes it all seem pretty simple. Lift weights to maximum failure and watch the fat melt away. If that were the case, every guy in the weight room would like a cover model for a fitness magazine and obviously that is not the case. It is not the case because somewhere along the line the body adapts.

MAXIMIZING MUSCLE MATH

The most potent aspect of the triple threat to fat posed by weight training is not in the exercise itself or the resultant increased muscle tone or size.

The real metabolic effect is in rebuilding muscle and building new muscle:

M, M-1, M, M+1, M, M+1, M+2

It takes calories to rebuild the muscle “M” after weight training and increase muscle tone and size “M+1″.

If a person is not inflicting very much micro-trauma, or any micro-truama the metabolic effect is minimal or non-existent.

For example:

M, M-.01, M, M+.01

A person could be under-training because they are just not lifting very hard, not lifting to maximum failure or because their body has adapted to the amount of exercise.

Once the muscle has rebuilt itself and grown, it takes an increased exercise load to inflict micro-trauma.

If the muscles fully adapt to the exercise load there is no “M-1″ or even “M-.01″.

At the opposite end of the spectrum would be severe over-training:

Presume again you have “M” amount of muscle. You engage in some insane workouts creating massive micro-trauma “M-3″. Your body goes into the rebuilding process but only gets to “M-1″ before you do another insane workout. You are now at “M-4″.

Yes, the metabolic effect is there, but only for a period of time because the frightening thing about over-training is that the body will adapt to even insane workouts. A person doing the exact same insane workout week-in-weekout can wind up at: M-.01, M, M+.01

It is possible a person could increase the insanity of their workouts, but that would just set the cycle in motion again.

After reading this section the beginner, novice or any sane person would be justified in throwing their hands up in frustration. (Nita and I both experienced bouts of frustration from over-training and under-training. And we hanven’t even mentioned the role of protein intake.)

There is of course a very simple solution to the conundrum: The Rosenfield Rule.

DO MORE THIS WEEK, THAN YOU DID LAST WEEK

In the University of Limberg study the excising students only worked out just twice a week doing, “three sets of 15 repetitions…on the following exercises: bench press, flies, squat, leg curl, leg extension, seated rowing, lat pull down, dumbbell curl, triceps push down, and sit ups.”

A twice a week total-body-workout hits right in the middle of the hypertrophy zone and is a long way from anything truely insane.

The hypertrophy zone is an amount of work that results in the optimal M, M-1, M, M+1 cycle of micro-trauma, rebuilding and muscle growth.

The authors of the article don’t dwell on finer points of the weight training program but do mention each session was supervised by a trainer. The presence of a trainer and the resulting increase in muscle reported in the article are sure signs the students were following the Rosenfield Rule.

The Rosenfield Rule is simple: Do more this week than you did last week, do more next week than you did this week.

The experiment protocals called for the students to perform three sets of 15 repetitions on each exercise but did not prescribe the weight to be used. If they increased the weight as they became stronger from the increased muscle, they would be following the Rosenfield Rule. They would be consistently doing “more.”

A moderate weight training program of a few basic exercises following the Rosenfield Rule prevents excessive over-training or under-training.

The real fat burning effect of weight training comes from the rebuilding of muscle tissue and building a little more muscle before the next time that muscle is worked.

A weight lifting program that causes too much micro-trauma will deliver results for a period of time but as muscle is lost the effect declines. Training programs that don’t have enough micro-trauma or do not follow the Rosenfield Rule also have declining results which is why not every guy in the weight room looks like a cover model for a fitness magazine.

To maximize the simple math muscle’s metabolic effects a person needs a workout plan that falls near their hypertrophy zone.

A pound of muscle has 1,816 calories. As shown by the University of Limberg experiment, it takes twice as many calories to build a pound of muscle which is why the metabolic fat loss effect of weight training goes far beyond the calories burned in the gym.

In a previous post on why cardio doesn’t work, I went into myriad of reasons why normal cardio fails to deliver the desired results and the benefits of HIIT.

High Intensity Interval Training is cardio vascular training where you “sprint” for short burst of time, usually less than two minutes, and then slow down for a minute or two. HIIT can be performed on an exercise bike, treadmill, elliptical, stepper or even in a parking lot.

HIIT are workouts are usally short, often less than 20 minutes, but deliver more results than traditional endurance training especially in terms of fat loss.

In a 1994 study comparing HIIT to traditional cardio, the group performing HIIT lost significantly more body fat then the group doing traditional cardio.

The researchers from Laval University in Quebec reported:

“The decrease in the sum of six subcutaneous skinfolds induced by the HIIT program was ninefold greater than by the ET (endurance training) program.”

The HIIT burned more fat while expending half the energy of traditional cardio.

There is no clear research on exactly why HIIT works better than traditional cardio, but Carl Lenore, a life extension and bodybuilding guru, suggested it was linked to evolutionary biology.

When humans hunted game on the savannah, they had to sprint. To flee a predator they had to sprint.

University studies have shown time and again HIIT beats traditional cardio. It is truly one of the instances where less is more.

That was the question asked by researchers at Stanford University as they partnernered with Interleukin Genetics, a company that develops genetic tests, to determine if genetic predispostions affect which diet plan will work for a person.

The results?  Yes, genetics does play a role.  Subjects whose diet matched their genetic predispostion lost 5.3% of their pre-diet body weight.  The subjects whose diet did not match their genetics only lost 2.3%.

The current study, presented to an American Heart Association conference, built on the findings of Stanford’s A to Z diet study.

The A–Z study compared the Atkins, LEARN, Ornish and Zone diets.

Atkins came out ahead in the A–Z study, but there were wild variations in the groups following each diet.  Some subjects could lose 30 pounds on the Atkins diet while others barely lost 10.

Other subjects lost weight on the low-fat Ornish Diet, while others gained weight on Ornish.

The role of genetics should not be surprising.  Everyone’s metabolism is a little different and some people’s, like mine, are downright cruel.

I have a double whammy metabolic problem.  I’m insulin resistant, which means my body does not process carbs and sugars well, and my muscles do not absorb and hold glycogen.

What that means is a high carbohydrate diet, even if it produces a caloric deficit, will not result in much if any fat loss for me.  The carbs I eat are turned into blood sugar and then directly deposited into fat.

And as it turns out, 45% of white women are genetically predisposed to be more successful on a low-carb diet.

For people who are low-carb genotype, a ketogenic diet like the ones Nita Marquez and I describe in our book Fit for Combat can lead to dynamic fat loss.

For fat loss and reshaping your body, a low-carb, high protein diet when combined with weight training is still the best path because of the metabolic synergy–it tricks the body into burning fat as the primary source of energy while allowing it to increase muscle tone and size that leads to a higher resting metabolic rate.

For the low-fat genotype, a high protein, low-carb diet when combined with weight training delivers the same synergy when fat intake is controlled.

The genetic testing is still a long way off from being perfectly dialed in to guide a person, but determining the right diet to fit into your favorite pair of jeans has a lot do with your genes.

If this is your experience, you are not alone.

A study published this month in the Journal of Applied Physiology found that some people, no matter how much they exercise, just cannot improve their stamina and endurance.

Twenty percent of the test subjects in the study improved their maximum aerobic capacity by less than five percent--even with a workout plan customized by specialists.

The European and American researchers studied three groups of subjects, including 500 people who trained for twenty weeks, to determine what role genetics played in a person’s ability to increase their aerobic capacity.

They found that a sequence of 11 DNA markers is able to predict a person’s ability, or inability, to make improvements.

If the study’s parameters are a representative enough sample, that means there are a lot of frustrated exercisers out there wondering why they never make much improvement in performance.

They key word in all of this is performance, as in VO2 Max.  Just because you are ill suited to win a road race does not mean you cannot get the other benefits, like fat loss, from a sound cardio vascular exercise program.

For the VO2 Max impaired, High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) is a great alternative to pounding along at a steady state as it does not demand endurance or stamina or liters of oxygen exchange for fat loss.

High intensity interval training, like the kind Nita Marquez and I describe in our book Fit for Combat, also burns significantly more body fat than pounding along at a steady rate.  (For a demonstration of an HIIT workout, watch the clip at the end of this article.)

How much more body fat does interval training burn than regular old fashioned cardio?  According this study, nine times more.

You may not be born to run, and if you aren’t there is no reason to pound your head against the wall by pounding the pavement and wondering why things aren’t working as advertised.  Switch to a training program that is more suited to your genetics and proven in the lab to burn more fat.

If you are one of the 20%, you may never be much of a road racer, but by training a little smarter, you can fit into the pants hanging in the back of closet.

The report will feature a quote by some doctor or professor saying that a person only really needs 60 grams of protein a day.

The template of the TV report will be a less nuanced version of this Live Science column and like the column, will not feature an informed counter point because, “hey, the science is settled right?”

Wrong.  As researchers from McMaster University pointed in a paper published in the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, the science of protein in people who exercise, especially those who lift weights, is as about as settled as man-made global warming.

PROTEIN IS DANGEROUS!?!

The news media loves the ‘Health Risk’ story, especially local TV news.  If it wasn’t for the ‘Health Risk’ story local affiliates would never be able to fill the 10-minute-news hole of the modern Eye Witness News format.

The Live Science column dutifully cites the health risk:

“No studies have identified definitively short-term health problems from excess protein, but this has been associated with kidney failure, osteoporosis and heart disease.”

The problem is high-protein diets have been found in other studies to reduce the risks of renal failure and heart disease.

“In establishing the RDA, the IOM report reviewed the impact of high protein intake on renal disease and concluded that levels of dietary protein are not related to progressive decline in kidney function with age. Other studies examining protein intake and renal function support this conclusion…in fact, preliminary studies show a positive effect of higher protein diets on risk factors for kidney disease, including obesity, hypertension, and diabetes.”  (Phillips, et.al, McMaster University)

The Canadian and Alaskan Inuit populations have incredibly high protein intake throughout their lives without any negative health effects.

But those facts get in the way of a good story.

If the health risks of a high-protein diet are overblown, how does the claim of added protein being a waste of money stack up?

MEASURING THE PROTEIN BENEFIT

Compared to the seemingly omni-present high fructose corn syrup, protein is not cheap.  The wholesale price of HCF is about 32 cents per pound compared to wholesale box beef cut-out of $1.40 per pound.  Whey protein concentrate wholesales for about 93 cents per pound.

Switching from carbs to protein will affect your waist and your wallet.

In our book Fit for Combat, Nita and I advise men to eat 1.5 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight once they get into the more intense weight lifting workouts.  The professors and health pundits recommend half a gram of protein per pound of bodyweight for athletes.

The protein consumption we advise is based on consensus among trainers of competitve physique athletes and what a normal person can reasonably shove down their throat in a day.

That may not seem incredibly scientific, but trainers like Tim Sparkes of Die Hard Gym in Phoenix prepare dozens male bodybuilding and women figure competitors for competitions every year have a large data set on what works.

The practitioners of building muscle and strength all agree–it takes a lot of protein to build muslce.

Dr. Mauro Di Pasquale, a medical doctor and former professor, advises 2 grams of protein per pound to maximize muscle gains.

Some huge bodybuilders on massive quantities of steroids will eat up to 4 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight.  They can eat that much because they have so much muscle to begin with and are taking massive doses of drugs that enhance muscle protein synthesis.

Obviously there is a divide between the practitioners and the professors.  Part of the divide is in how they view the role and purpose of protein.

Phillips et.al point out the recommended daily allowance for protein was arrived at in a curious fashion–measures of nitrogen balance.

The goal of the recommended daily allowace is to prevent a protein deficiency.  That is to balance protein intake with protein use.  The commonly cited flaw in nitrogen balance measures is that body will adapt to a lower protein intake by down-regulating nitrogen loss.

Because the RDA is based on nitrogen equillibrium in prevention of deficiency, the studies in athletes also focus on the minimum required for balance in protein consumption compared to protein used.  For weight lifters who want to increase muscle tone and size the goal is not mere equillibrium.

“Although attaining nitrogen balance per se is likely a healthful and adequate endpoint for sedentary individuals, it is questionable whether the same can be said for athletes. For those wishing to gain lean mass, for example, positive nitrogen balance is the desired goal. This is presumably because of the periodic stimulation of muscle protein synthesis, which, if it is to support the net gain of new proteins, would require net extra amino acids.”  (Phillips, et.al)

Which is exactly what the practitioners like Tim Sparkes and Glenn Krog are saying.

“Ninety grams of protein a day may be fine if you just want to survive, but if you want supraphysiological health and body conditioning, then more protein is a prerequisite,” Krog said referring to the Live Science column.

The goal of the professors is maintenance, nitrogen balance.  The goal of the practitioners is body recomposition to a lean, muscular physique.  Krog offers this simple explanation of the RDA divide using the same numbers provided by the Live Science columnist.

“Ninety grams of protein is 360 calories, assuming the the average male eats a measly 1700 calories a day, and 15%(255calories – 28g) comes from fat, then the balance is carbohydrate -1085 calories or 271g of carbs, I want to see an average man eat 271 grams of carbs a day and lose fat.”

The McMaster University researchers even pointed to a volume of studies showing that a low carbohydrate, high protein diet resulted in the subjects losing fat while retaining muscle.  But they stopped well short of endorsing the larger quantities of protein advocated by the practitioners.

“Quite simply, in the absence of evidence suggesting that higher intakes are beneficial, it is not yet possible to say that they will be beneficial.”

It is also not possible to say they are a waste of money as there are no controlled studies comparing high protein intake to moderate protein intake during a strength training exercise program.

To the professors, anything beyond balance is a waste, to the practitioners the added protein beyond balance the goal–making the expense worth it.

This would make the whole debate seem like a wash, but there is actually a lot of common ground that the professors and practitioners agree on, especially when protein consumption can maximize benefits and how find out for yourself if extra protein works for you.

SYNTHESIS SYNERGY

Of all the quirks and contours of the debate, one aspect of protein is often overlooked, an aspect that lends support to what the practioners and bodybuilders are saying–just eating protein increases muscle protein synthesis.

In an article in Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, researchers from McMaster University report on the effects of protein after it is ingested.

They found through a large body of research that protein consumption stimulates muscle protein synthesis stating, “stimulation of MPS is driven almost exclusively by the hyperaminoacidemia.”  Hyperaminoacidemia being an abundance of amino acids in the blood stream.

The mere ingestion of protein leads to protein synthesis in the muscles and halts muscle breakdown.

There is also a synergy between exercising Type II muscle fibers, eating protein and protein synthesis.

Type II fibers, also known as fast twitch fibers, are the ones used in weight lifting and sprinting.  They are also the ones that increase in size and tone in response to weight training.

After reviewing a long list of peer reviewed studies Phillips concludes working the fast twitch fibers is most likely a “prerequisite condition to maximize the anabolic effect of resistance exercise.”

When protein is consumed before and after weight training that activates the Type II Fibers, the accrual of muscle protein spikes.  The optimal timing is one hour before and immediately after training.  The optimal dosage is ~20 grams of protein before and ~20 grams after, which would get a person almost halfway to the 90 grams cited by the Live Science columnist.

But if you look at the chart again, the protein utilization rate that spikes at around 20 grams does not stop.  Test subjects who consumed up 40 grams were still showing synthesis.

The extra synthesis between 20 grams and 40 grams is something that could add up over the course of weeks and months and be the difference between a plateau on consistent progress.

The synergistic effect of weight training and protein consumption is not disputed–only the optimal amount of protein is.  Professors see the reduced “rate of return” and say 20 grams is enough after working out.  The practioners see the trend line still going up and ask, “why stop at 20?”

Muscle protein synthesis caused by just eating protein backs of the practitioner’s strategy of frequent consumption of protein rich meals.  If everytime a person eats protein MPS is induced, why just consume protein three or four times a day?

But none of this answers the most pressing question:  Will increased protein yield results specifically for you?

To answer the question you need to move beyond the thinking of TV News reporter or columnist and think the way a research scientists should, but usually fail to.

AN IN-ELEGANT EXPERIMENT

The heart and soul of our book Fit for Combat and the Fit for Combat System is a simple thesis–people need to find the workout and eating plan that works for them.

Because everyone has different genetics, Nita and I take people through a series of steps that are actually mini-experiments to get them dialed in on a workout plan that works for them.

To determine the amount of protein that yields results for you, you need to experiment.

Take a look at the chart below.

Much of human physiology conforms to the standard bell curve.  In fact the bell curve was created to display human physical characteristics.

In this curve, each dot represents a person.  The people on the left have less natural ability to synthesize protein, the people on the right are protein synthesizing machines.

If you are on the left hand side, increased protein consumption will not benefit your efforts to increase msucle tone or size.  If you are on the right, your body will gladly turn massive amounts of protein into muscle tissue.

But if you are somewhere in the middle, how do you figure out what amount of protein will work for you?

By conducting your own personal experiment.  Like all experiments you need to control and manage some of the variables–like your workout and caloric intake.  Keep your workout the same and do not decrease your total caloric intake.

If you are consuming less than 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight, increase the protein.

If you are consuming a lot of protein, ratchet it down the the RDA for athletes of .5 grams per pound of body weight.

Run the experiment for say eight to 16 weeks and see what happens.

Now, this proposed self experiment seems pretty simple and straight forward, but for all the back and forth between the professors and the practitioners, I have yet to find a university study that actually compares the results of protein intake on weight training test subjects.

You would think for all the certainty stated by some researchers and journalists, a study like the one described above could be cited.  But as McMaster University’s Phillips stated just a year ago, “It is clear that we are beginning to understand how feeding and exercise influence changes in MPS and, ultimately, muscle mass.”

At least the practioners have strong anecdotal data sets.

The science of increased protein intake on muscle mass is far from settled, but there is one statement by the Live Science columnist that I and other serious practitioners agree with — “Supplements, usually sold as a powder with testosterone-fueled names like Muscle Max 500 or Mega Monster Mass” are a waste of money.  The best sources of protein are real food like eggs, steak, chicken, fish and good old fashioned generic whey protein.

Coach Ron Lee, a firm believer in the Option Offense, wind sprints and polyester coach shorts was citing what was then–and still is–a conventional wisdom in weight lifting.

But the conventional wisdom is coming into doubt from a recent study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology.

BIG LIFTS, BIG MUSCLES

It is well established and beyond dispute that big lifts, compound joint movements like squats, deadlifts, etc. will cause the body to rapidly increase the production of the anabolic hormone testosterone as well as human growth hormone and insulin like growth factor.

For bodybuilders testosterone, HGH and IGF are the holy trinity of muscle growth.

The conventional, and seemingly sensible wisdom was that because the big lifts caused a spike in the amount of those hormones in the blood stream, big lifts should form the foundation of a weight training program.  Taken a step further, big lifts should be paired with working smaller muscle groups so they too would get the benefit of the extra hormones.

This idea was repeated again and again until it became ingrained into the conventional wisdom of weight training.  No one questioned it because it just seemed so logical–more anabolic hormones will lead to muscle growth.  To get big biceps, you need to work your legs too, hence Coach Lee’s refrain about the collateral benefits of squats and deadlifts.

That conventional wisdom was put to the test by researchers at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.

INDUCING THE ANABOLIC SPIKE

Repeated studies have shown, “Protocols high in volume, moderate to high in intensity, using short rest intervals and stressing a large muscle mass, tend to produce the greatest acute hormonal elevations (e.g. testosterone, GH and the catabolic hormone cortisol) compared with low-volume, high-intensity protocols using long rest intervals.”

The experiment conducted by the McMaster University researchers used two test groups over the course of 15 weeks.  One group performed only bicep exercises which would not increase anabolic hormones, the other performed bicep and leg exercises which would induce the anabolic spike.

The group that performed bicep and leg exercises did experience the hormonal spike, the most significant being in growth hormone which increased almost 10 fold for the group that trained legs and biceps.  Testosterone more than doubled in the leg training group as well.

The blood tests alone give support to what my football coach was saying all those years ago–there is a massive spike in muscle building hormones.

But when the researchers tested to see if it resulted in actual muscle growth, the conventional wisdom of Coach Lee and many others went out the window.

PROOF IS IN THE MEASUREMENTS

There are many things that seem so sensible, things that one would automatically assume A led to B.

The spike in testosterone, HGH and IGF brought on by intense weight training should increase muscle size compared to a type training that did not spike the hormones.  But after 15 weeks, the difference between the high hormone group and low hormone group was insignificant.

Each group made gains, but the high hormone group did not beat the low hormone group by a relevant margin.

How could a 100% increase in testosterone and nearly 10 fold increase in HGH not lead to muscle growth?  The answer is revealed in the blood test charts.

The high hormone group that trained legs and biceps did indeed experience a massive spike in testosterone, HGH and IGF, but 60 minutes after the workout ended, their hormone levels were the same as group that just trained biceps.

The process of muscle repair and hypertrophy after weight training lasts hours and days, not minutes.  The exercise induced spike just does not last long enough have a major impact on hypertrophy–especially in the way supraphysiologic doses of anabolic hormones do.

The effects of the spike of anabolic hormones from intense exercise can have numerous benefits to the body, but increased hypertrophy is not one of them–at least not over the course of 15 weeks under the protocols of this study.  A study lasting 52 weeks or several years–the real amount of time it takes for humans to build significant musle–may yield different results.   

But this study sheds some light on another conventional wisdom–like cardio always leading to fat loss–that makes sense, but doesn’t produce measurable results.  

We were wrapping up another day of work conducting a low-key data collection mission in Salah ad Din province, Iraq and the soldiers were planning on getting a bite to eat then hitting the gym at thier small outpost.

The soldiers of Battle Company of 1-28 Infantry were very competitive in the gym posting their best lifts on a marker board.

“What do you bench Mr. Johannes?” one of them asked.

I honestly do not know my maximum single repetition on any lift, but I told them I had bench pressed 300 pounds for 10 reps.

There was a moment of silence, then came the comment about Old Man Strength.

I had never heard the term before.  “Dude, I’m only 37.  What is ‘Old Man Strength’?”

As he explained it, Old Man Strength is the “ability to put your mind into it.”

A couple other soldiers chuckled, but the young man was actually right on target.

THE STRENGTH CURVE

In his book Extreme Fear, Jeff Wise discusses the effect of the brain’s reaction to stimuli on strength and athletic performance.

Wise cites the research by Vladimir Zatsiorsky on three different types of strength--Absolute, Maximal and Competitive Maximum.

Absolute Strength is the total mechanical strength of a person, the force a person should be able to apply.

According to Zatsiorsky’s research humans can rarely apply all that force.  A novice weight lifter can apply 65%, an experience athlete can apply 80%.  This lesser number is called Maximal Strength.

But, in competitive situations Maximal Strength can be increased by as much as 12%--hence the term Competitive Maximum.

The increase in competition is thought to be related to the Yerkes-Dodson Curve.

The increased mental arousal by a competition produces increased physical performance in some people and only to a point.

If the pressure of competition is too much, the arousal goes to far along the curve and performance decreases.  But if a person is at or near the top of the curve, they can approach the force of Absolute Strength.

As I spent more time around the soldiers of Battle Company I learned that the term Old Man Strength made its first appearance while practicing Army Combatives, a form of mixed martial arts.

Everytime the soldiers sparred, an older Platoon Sergeant, when matched against younger soldiers of equal size and skill, always won.  This Sergeant smoked, didn’t do much PT but could summon a reserve of power--Old Man Strength.

His experience in the Army and in multiple combat tours put him in the sweet spot of the Yerkes-Dodson Curve in a competitive situation.  Just being older and more experienced gave him an edge.

But there is another component to increased Maximal Strength that gives the old man the edge.

AUTOMATIC MUSCLES

Deep in the brain is an area that works behind the scenes called the ventral striatum.

The ventral striatum is a part of the brain that works at the subconscious level and plays a role in muscle memory--the firing of the muscles in the correct sequence to execute a task.

As I type this I am totally unaware of the need to find individual keys--the complex actions taking place are so well rehearsed from years of typing that they work on auto-pilot.

The same thing applies to weight lifting in the gym.

Two weeks ago I moved up to 140 pound dumbbells for incline bench press.  My first attempts at handling those huge dumbbells must have looked absurd--it sure felt absurd.

Lifting 140 pound dumbbells is an athletic movement that requires a lot of balance and coordination as well as raw strength.

Now on my second week with them, I look much smoother.

Over the course of the two weeks I may have an ounce or two of extra muscle to help move the weight, but mostly the ventral striatum and other parts of my brain had been at work refining how my muscles will work in sequence.

I did not have to consciously think about how I was going to balance the weight--in fact it felt very smooth and easier than I expected.  Well, not EASY, the struggle was with the weight of the dumbbells not their awkward size.

Over the years I have performed thousands of repetitions in the gym involving the muscles used in an incline bench press--pecs, delts, triceps.  Every repetition has helped refine the performance leading to an improved Maximal Strength.  The more repetitions, the more powerful the effort of the muscles--giving the old man the advantage again.

Combine the the fact that I was being recorded on a Flip camera for a little boost on the Yerkes-Dodson Curve and I beat my effort from the previous week handily.

The old Platoon Sergeant sparring with younger soldiers may have only been at a certain level of combatives skill according to the Army, but over the years had more practice grappling so his reactions were more automatic.

In your own exercise regime you are probably not contemplating 140 pound dumbbells or mixed martial arts sparring with young soldiers--but the performance advantages of Old Man Strength can be engineered to your advantage.

A slightly competitive environment can improve your performance and long term progress.  For strength trainers the exrta boost along the curve could add extra intensity to a workout which can speed up progress in increasing muscle tone and size.

The extra repetitions induced by the curve give the ventral striatum more to work with further enhancing your training.

And that is the secret of Old Man Strength.