Does Coffee = Dehydration?

Do Dehydration and Coffee Consumption Go Hand-in-Hand?  Let's Pray Not!!!!!!!

I don't have an exact figure, but suffice it to say that on a scale of 1-10, I LOVE COFFEE!  However, if you're a fellow coffee aficionado, you've likely heard word from naysayers that coffee, and more so caffeine, consumption can lead to dehydration.  In fact, both my freshman and sophomore years of college, when I took gen. ed. health courses, my professors espoused that for every cup of coffee you drink, you ought to consume an equal amount of water.  But is this so?

After taking a look at the actual published research, I can happily say that we have little to fear!

The Study - No Evidence of Dehydration with Moderate Daily Coffee Intake: A Counterbalanced Cross-Over Study in a Free-Living Population

Research published this January for PLUS One, by authors Killer et al., suggests that - "coffee, when consumed in moderation by caffeine habituated males contributes to daily fluid requirement and does not pose a detrimental effect to fluid balance."  The authors took 50 male habitual coffee drinkers (pay attention to the habitual part, it's important!), and assigned them to one of two groups:  one group drinking "4×200 mL of coffee containing 4 mg/kg caffeine," and the other group drinking an equal amount of water.  The study lasted for a total of 3 days.

While the authors compiled various data tables, the table you see below most interested me - 

This data consists of total body water (TBW), as measured by deuterium oxide analysis.  Pre-Trial measurements were taken at Day 1, and Post Trial measurements were taken at Day 3.  As you can see from the above data, the coffee group didn't experience any loss of water weight.  In fact, the coffee group actually experienced an increase in water weight (though this increase is negligible).  Very interesting news for anyone so enamored by the vivacious claims of supposed "experts" who would have use believe that coffee has just the opposite effect of that reported by Killer et al.  Coffee does not lead to dehydration.  Moreover, it can actually prevent dehydration; like plain water itself, only in better fashion because, well, it's coffee! 

The Importance of Habituation

One thing you ought to keep in mind as you consider this information is that this data may really only hold true for habitual coffee/caffeine drinkers.  Take a look at this table the authors include in their report -

Effect of caffeine consumption on urine production.

Authors	Caffeine Dose(mg)	Caffeine Source	Test population	Diuretic Effect
[8]	4 mg/d (200–700 mg)	Caffeine tablet	Habituated caffeine users	Yes –during first day only
[9]	490–680 (8.7 mg/kg bw)	Caffeine powder added to carbohydrate electrolyte drink Vs carbohydrate electrolyte drink	Caffeine naïve (Habitual coffee drinkers – 4 day pre-trial deprivation)	Yes
[10]	642	Caffeinated coffee	Caffeine naïve (Habitual coffee drinkers – 5 day pre-trial deprivation)	Yes
[14]	452	Caffeine tablet	Habitual caffeine users – 98±17 mg/day	No
[17]	360	Caffeine tablet	NA	Yes
[15]	300	Caffeine tablet	Habitual coffee drinkers – 8 h pre-trial deprivation	No
[25]	250	Caffeine beverage	Caffeine naïve (Non-coffee drinkers – 3 week caffeine deprived)	Yes
[31]	250	Caffeine tablet	Caffeine naïve (1 week caffeine deprived)	Yes –during first hour only
[32]	240	Caffeine beverage	Caffeine habituated users	Yes
[14]	226	Caffeine capsules	Habitual caffeine users – 98±17 mg/day	No
[16]	168 and 252	Caffeinated tea	Caffeine users – 12 h deprived	No
[13]	114–253	Caffeinated carbonated cola, Caffeinated carbonated, non-caloric cola, Instant coffee	Caffeine habituated (61–464 mg/day)	No
[17]	45, 90 and 180	Caffeine tablet	NA	No

Regarding this information, the authors state -

These studies report observations across a range of caffeine forms and doses on various markers of hydration status in either caffeine-habituated or caffeine-naive populations (individuals who do not habitually consume caffeine, or those who have abstained from caffeine consumption for ≥4 days). Although the data are somewhat varied, the general trend is that higher doses of caffeine in caffeine-naive individuals will elicit an acute increase in urine volume, yet a low to moderate dose of caffeine does not induce a diuretic effect.

In other words, those unaccustomed to caffeine consumption may experience some diuretic/dehydrating effects from relatively high doses of the substance.  Though, one notable limit of the above data befalls us:  Caffeine does not equate, 1 for 1, to coffee.  The authors rightly indicate that -

Coffee is comprised of many bioactive compounds in addition to caffeine. These active compounds may interact with each other and therefore coffee consumption cannot be directly compared to caffeine consumption in its purest form. 

Because of this very real distinction that exists between straight caffeine intake, and the consumption of coffee, I love that Killer et al. actually use coffee in their study; thus making their results a little more relevant to coffee drinkers, such as myself.

In Conclusion

If you're a regular coffee drinker, having already become well adjusted to the effects of caffeine, you have no major impetus preventing you from continuing in your coffee-love.  For those uninitiated, take time to adapt prior to diving head first into a pool full of this life-giving nectar.  In the long term, you have nothing to fear; no threat of dehydration or any other boogeymen will likely come your way.  Of course, never regard what I say here as ultimate truth.  If you think you do experience dehydration, listen to your body, not me.  I say, however, coffee lovers, drink away!

Why I Have a Problem With Vegetarianism - Part V: Cardiovascular Disease

Our quest to obliterate false dietary dogma continues!

....Well, not really, but, in this post, I do plan to add yet another piece of straw to the vegetarian camel's back.

"Why?" you ask.....Because I enjoy writing argumentative essays.

Now, to turn from my digression, let's continue with our breakdown of Denise Minger's article.

Point # 4 of Minger's Critique

According to Minger, Campbell makes the following claim in his book, The China Study - 

Cardiovascular diseases are associated with lower intakes of green vegetables and higher concentrations of apo-B (a form of so-called bad blood cholesterol) which is associated with increasing intakes of animal protein and decreasing intakes of plant protein.

In short, Campbell claims that plant protein decreases, and animal protein increases, the amount of "bad cholesterol" (apo-B) circulating in one's blood.  Since an increase in apo-B associates with cardiovascular disease (e.g. - heart attacks & coronary heart disease, problems from high blood pressure, and stroke), plant protein = good, and animal protein = no bueno.  However, it seems once again that Campbell has jumped the gun with his conclusions; inferring causation when only weak, or often times non-existent, correlations abound.

In any event, how exactly did Campbell go about collecting data for this component of his argument? Questionnaires (oh boy).  Let me just say this:  WHEN SOMEONE STARTS INVOKING QUESTIONNAIRES AS EVIDENCE, I USUALLY STOP LISTENING.  Questionnaires, in my opinion, serve as terrible sources of scientific data; especially when one plans to make practical recommendations based on said data.

Why?

Because people are people are people.....are people.  Campbell, in order to determine if such a correlation between protein source and cardiovascular disease exists, asked people to indicate how many vegetables they ate per day, and over the course of the year.  I can only speak for myself, but I doubt I could accurately answer either of these questions reliably (save if I had kept an accurate food journal).  Questionnaires and surveys inescapably suffer from subjectivity.  Given that science, at least purportedly, values objectivity as the highest of virtues, it seems fair to say that survey/questionnaire based data acquisition stands juxtaposed to the scientific method.

At any rate, let's assume Campbell's questionnaires yielded objective results.  What do they tell us?

From the diet survey, green vegetable intake (average grams per day) has the following correlations:

• Myocardial infarction (heart attack) and coronary heart disease: +5
• Hypertensive heart disease (problems caused by high blood pressure): -4
• Stroke: -8

From the questionnaire, green vegetable intake (times eaten per year) has the following correlations:

• Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease: -43**
• Hypertensive heart disease: -36*
• Stroke: -35*

In view of this data, Minger points out that reported yearly consumption of vegetables far exceeds, in protective value, that of daily vegetable consumption.  What an interesting result, to say the least.  In response to this data, I have the same questions as Minger - "Why the huge difference? Why would frequency be more protective than quantity? What accounts for this mystery?"

According to Minger, the reason for this discrepancy lies in geography -

The counties in China that eat greens year-round live in a particular climate and latitude—namely, humid regions to the south.  The “Green vegetable intake, times per year” variable has a correlation of -68*** with aridity (indicating a humid climate) and a correlation of -60*** with latitude (indicating southerly placement on the ol’ map). Folks living in these regions might not eat the most green vegetables quantity-wise, but they do eat them frequently, since their growing season is nearly year-round.

In contrast, the variable “Green vegetable intake, grams per day” has a correlation of only -16 with aridity and +5 with latitude, indicating much looser associations with southern geography. The folks who eat lots of green veggies don’t necessarily live in climates with a year-round growing season, but when green vegetables are available, they eat a lot of them. That bumps up the average intake per day, even if they endure some periods where greens aren’t on the menu at all.

If green vegetables themselves were protective of heart disease, as Campbell seems to be implying, we would expect their anti-heart-disease effects to be present in both quantity of consumption and frequency of consumption. Yet the counties eating the most greens quantity-wise didn’t have any less cardiovascular disease than average. This tells us there’s probably another variable unique to the southern, humid regions in China that confers heart disease protection—but green veggies aren’t it.

Some of the hallmark variables of humid southern regions include high fish intake, low use of salt, high rice consumption (and low consumption of all other grains, especially wheat), higher meat consumption, and smaller body size (shorter height and lower weight). And...these southerly regions also had more intense sunlight exposure and thus more vitamin D—an important player in heart disease prevention.

In short, Campbell, in his vain attempts at reduction-ism, has failed to account for numerous, and more powerful, variables.

But What of Apo-B?

Despite the incredulity of Campbell's claims about plants, Minger notes the following -

Campbell is justified in noting the link between apolipoprotein B (apo-B) and cardiovascular disease in the China Study data, a connection widely recognized by the medical community today. These are its correlations with cardiovascular disease:

• Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease: +37**
• Hypertensive heart disease: +35*
• Stroke: +35*

And he’s also right about the negative association between apo-B and plant protein, which is -37*, as well as the positive association between apo-B and animal protein, which is +25* for non-fish protein and +16 for fish protein. So from a technical standpoint, Campbell’s statement (aside from the green veggie issue) is legit.

So, does Campbell yet come out on top?  "Technically," yes.  In reality, no.

When we look at the raw data, we get this -

Correlations between animal protein and cardiovascular disease:

• Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease: +1
• Hypertensive heart disease: +25
• Stroke: +5

Correlations between fish protein and cardiovascular disease:

• Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease: -11
• Hypertensive heart disease: -9
• Stroke: -11

Correlations between plant protein and cardiovascular disease (from the China Study’s “diet survey”):

• Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease: +25
• Hypertensive heart disease: -10
• Stroke: -3

Correlations between plant protein and cardiovascular disease (from the China Study’s “food composite analysis”):

• Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease: +21
• Hypertensive heart disease: 0
• Stroke: +12

As you can readily see, this data is quite erratic.  As Minger states, animal and plant protein are "neck-and-neck."  Moreover, Minger indicates that fish actually proves the most protective source of protein of all; meanwhile, plant protein actually seems most causative of heart attack!*

Now, you may yet note that animal protein looks fairly incriminated by this data (at least in view of hypertensive heart disease), however, when we break down the data further, according to more well defined sources of animal protein (fish included), we get this -

Correlations between specific animal foods and hypertensive heart disease:

• Milk and dairy products intake: +30
• Egg intake: -28
• Meat intake: -4
• Fish intake: -14

Dairy obviously looks rather bad in this data breakdown, but as Minger states in another article (A Closer Look at the China Study: Dairy and Disease) -

• China’s dairy eaters don’t have significantly more cancers, myocardial infarction, stroke, and so forth than the dairy-free regions.
• Dairy’s only significant mortality correlation, hypertensive heart disease, may be related to any number of variables we don’t have enough data to tweeze apart. (Lack of vegetables, excess sodium, high body weight, and high caloric intake, to name a few.)
• Despite T. Colin Campbell’s findings with the milk protein casein spurring cancer in lab rats, there does not seem to be a correlation between high dairy consumption and cancer in the China Study data.

Here's a data chart from that article, just to give you an idea of the sparsity of information Campbell had to work with regarding dairy -

In my opinion, 2 data points hardly suffice to incriminate diary.

*Please realize that I do not think we ought to avoid eating ample amounts of veggies.

The Bottom Line

Campbell correctly demonstrates an association between apo-B and cardiovascular disease, however, the irreducible variables which lead to such an outcome only frustrate attempts to nail down a definite cause.  As Minger states - 

[T]o imply animal protein is causative of these diseases—and green vegetables or plant protein protective of them—is dubious at best. What factors cause both apo-B and cardiovascular disease risk to increase hand-in-hand? This is the question we should be asking.

That's it for today.  If you missed the other 4 parts of this series, I have linked them below -

• Part I
• Part II
• Part III
• Part IV 

The Ultimate Chest Workout

So I've already written a post titled The Shoulder Workout to End All Shoulder Workouts.  Today, in the same spirit of unapologetic marketing, I plan to lay out a no BS, simple, and stupidly effective chest workout.

GROWING A BIG CHEST IS EASY!

Don't fall for the trick that there exists some muscle building secret far beyond your grasp, in the ether of unattainable truth.  In reality, building muscle requires that you do nothing more than lift gradually heavier and heavier objects.  Now, some subtle nuances do abound in this process (such as selecting more effective exercises), but, overall, you verily need nothing more than a barbell, some weights, and unrelenting determination!

ANATOMY OF THE PECZ!

1. Pars Clavicularis (or "Upper" Chest; not to be confused with the Pectoralis Minor)
2. Pars Sternocostalis (or "Mid" Chest; some people associate this with the "Lower Chest")
3. Pars Abdominialis (or "Lower" Chest)

Quite a lot of debate surrounds the anatomy of the chest; in particular, as to whether one can effectively "isolate" the "upper" and "lower" parts of the pectoralis major.  While I would say one can never truly "isolate" a part of the chest by using this or that exercise, I do say, and EMG testing has demonstrated this, you can emphasize certain fiber strands of the pectoralis major (note my emphasis on emphasize!  I love bad puns...) by attacking your chest from different angles.

Now, I know I sound like the typical "bro-scientist" when I say things like "attacking your chest from different angles," but, despite my disdain for "bro-science," some of its "theories" do have support from actual scientists.  In the case of chest training, "bro-science" has actually gotten itself on the right track (somewhat anyway).

Addressing a Common Debate

One of the controversies that surround chest workouts has to do with whether or not one can "over" work the lower fibers of the chest; thus resulting in, to put it nicely, an effeminate chest.  Often times, people may advocate using a greater ratio of incline bench presses to flat and decline presses (or dips) in order to avoid this scenario.  While I give some merit to this methodology, I tend more to say that one should do ample work for all three fiber sections of the chest, at least initially, so as to avoid under developing the chest as a whole.  Once you progress further in your training, and you think you may need additional work for your "upper" chest, feel free to do so; however, there's absolutely no need to worry about such nuances of chest training in the early stages of lifting.

Other Parts of the Chest

The pectoralis minor (which many people often mistakenly call the "Upper" Chest) lies beneath the pectoralis major.  The p. minor serves as an abductor, it allows downward rotation of the shoulders (during abduction), and serves as a depressor.  No one exercise exists for the sole purpose of targeting this muscle, however, it gets ample work from chest dips, and chins/pull-ups.

Another muscle with which many people lack familiarity is the Serratus Anterior.  This muscle bears the nick name, the "boxer's muscle;" much in part because of its involvement in elevating and upwardly rotating the scapula (that's your shoulder blades).  When you punch like a boxer, this muscle functions as an active component of performing this motion.  Exercises like shoulder presses, incline shoulder raises, and twisting chest presses will work the S. Anterior.

PUTTING THINGS TOGETHER

As I indicated in my shoulder workout post, I think working in the 4-8 rep range, using 75-85% of your 1 rep max, with a volume of no more than 4 total sets per muscle group (or fiber type) every 5-7 days works as a "sweet spot" of sorts for building muscle (especially type II fibers; which are the actual structural components of the muscle with the greatest growth potential).

So what workout do I recommend for building a "chiseled" chest?

THIS ONE - 

1. "Mid" Chest:  Flat Bench Press (with a barbell or dumbbells) for 4 sets of 4-8 reps.  (Barbell - Video; Dumbbell - Video)
2. "Upper" Chest:  Incline Bench Press (with a barbell or dumbbells) for 4 sets of 4-8 reps.  (Barbell - Video; Dumbbell - Video)
3. "Lower" Chest:  Chest Dips (weighted if you can) for 4 sets of 4-8 reps.  (Video)
4. (*Optional) Serratus Anterior:  Incline Shoulder Raise for 4 sets of 6-8 reps.  (Video)

*This is optional because you may already get enough stimulation for your S. Anterior with shoulder presses.

Notes - 

• Warm-up with 1 set of 8 reps at 50% of your target work weight, then do 1 set of 6 reps at 50%, 1 set of 3 reps at 75%, and finally 1 set of 1 rep at 90%.  Rest 1 minute between warm-up sets, and rest 2 minutes before beginning your first work set.  Only do this for the flat bench press (your chest will be plenty warm for the remaining exercises).
• Rest about 2-3 minutes between work sets.
• Once you can get the top number of reps for a given exercise, add 5-10lbs of weight, and work with that weight until you can reach the top number of reps again.

That's It!

See, I told you building a big, chiseled chest would be easy!  Now, stop reading, and start lifting!

Why I Have a Problem With Vegetarianism - Part IV: Effect of Eating Dead Animals on Liver Cancer Risk

You can read Part III of this series here - Why I Have a Problem with Vegetarianism - Part III

As we progress in this series, I want to make something undeniably clear - I DO NOT THINK THAT VEGETARIANISM IS THE DEVIL!

My primary critique of vegetarianism has nothing to do with its healthfulness as a dietary lifestyle per se.  Rather, my main concern is that many people 1) have a an irrational fear of all animal products; a fear that is not at all founded upon solid empirical evidence, and 2) many people, because they fail to truly understand the nutritional shortcomings of a purely plant based diet, fail to properly supplement their diets so as to prevent disastrous nutrient deficiencies; deficiencies which one could otherwise avoid by keeping animal sources of food in one's diet.

Now......back to my (or rather Denise Minger's) critique:

Point #3 of Minger's Critique

Another of Campbell's claims, which he makes in his book The China Study, is that animal-based foods induce liver cancer to develop in people who already have an increased risk of the disease (such as those with hepatitis B).  Once again, Campbell, here, attempts to show that animal foods may indirectly cause cancer by spurring cancer's development when other risk factors already have a presence.  This argument seems strikingly similar to another of Campbell's arguments (which I've talked about already in this series) that animal protein indirectly leads to cancer via its effect upon serum cholesterol.  Needless to say, but I'll say it anyway, I think I satisfactorily made apparent why such a chain of causation has no real viable empirical support.  But, does today's topic follow suit?  Frankly - YES.

The above list represents data taken from Minger's site.  The odd, unpronounceable names in the far left column are the names of various Chinese counties.  In the middle left column, we have the % of people living in these counties who have hepatitis B.  The middle right column indicates the amount of animal products the people from these counties consume on a regular basis (represented in grams per day).  Finally, the far right column indicates the rate of mortality from liver cancer.

Of this data table, Minger states - 

When we map out liver cancer mortality and animal product consumption only in areas with high rates of hepatitis B infection (18% and higher), we should see cancer rates rise as animal product consumption increases—at least, according to Campbell. That would indicate animal-based foods do encourage cancer growth.

To the contrary, however, we get the following data -

As you can see, hardly any connection at all exists to incriminate animal foods as causative of liver cancer.  In fact, according to Minger, we can only inductively infer a +1 correlation between animal-based foods and liver cancer based on this data.  In case you were wondering, a +1 correlation hardly counts as significant.

Minger, however, goes a step further to actually hash out how particular sources of animal products correlate with liver cancer risk -

Meat correlates at -7 with liver cancer in high-risk counties

Fish correlates at +11

Eggs correlate at -29

Dairy correlates at -19

Very interesting to say the least.  As a side note, I find it truly ironic that fish, a source of animal protein many people, vegetarian or otherwise, find acceptable, has a positive correlation with liver cancer, while meat, eggs, and dairy all seem inversely correlated with liver cancer.  Don't mistake this note as a suggestion that we ought to avoid fish, however.

But what of plasma cholesterol?

It is true that plasma cholesterol correlates with increased risk of liver cancer (+37); however, when we factor in hepatitis B, this correlation drops (to +8).  A +8 correlation, though higher than +1, still falls short of strong statistical significance.

Minger posits the following - 

If I were Campbell, I’d look at not only animal protein and cholesterol in relation to liver cancer, but also at the many other variables that correlate positively with the disease. For instance, daily liquor intake correlates at +33*, total alcohol intake correlates at +28*, cigarette use correlates at +27*, intake of the heavy metal cadmium correlates at +38**, rapeseed oil intake correlates at +25*—so on and so forth. All are statistically significant. Why doesn’t Campbell mention these factors as possible causes of increased liver cancer in high-risk areas? And, more importantly, why doesn't Campbell account for the fact that many of these variables occur alongside increased cholesterol and animal product consumption, making it unclear what’s causing what?

Closing Remarks

In response to Minger's question, I'd suggest this - Campbell doesn't account for other variables which occur alongside increased cholesterol and animal product consumption because he wants to indict cholesterol and animal protein consumption.  Am I accusing Campbell of bias?  You bet!  

If Campbell took the more humble route, indicating the epistemological limits of his conclusions, I'd say he would sell far fewer books.  People, consumers really, want to hear a reductionist message.  Put another way, reductionism sells.  People easily fall for the trap (and I have numerous times) that health and well-being can be reduced to just a handful, or even less, of dietary changes.  In reality, a host of factors play a role in our health; in ways which complicate and frustrate our attempts to nail down prime causes.  But, complexity and frustration, and epistemological honesty, don't sell.

The Shoulder Workout to End All Shoulder Workouts

I hate flashiness, but here it goes -

DO YOU WANT SHOULDERS OF STEEL?

TIRED OF WASTING HOURS IN THE GYM?

READ ON TO DISCOVER THE BEST EXERCISES AND WORKOUT ROUTINE FOR GETTING THOSE CAPPED OFF DELTOIDS YOU'VE ALWAYS DREAMED ABOUT!

Now, with that wonderful bit of unapologetic marketing out of the way, let's get down to brass tacks.  

You, likely I hope, have not spent many a sleepless night fretting about the size of your shoulders.  If you have...., well, let's just not go there.  

However, if you, like me, would like to stop wasting precious time in the gym, getting no where for all the hard work you've done, listen up!

.....or, rather, read on.....

WHY GROWING BIG SHOULDERS IS SIMPLE

Once upon a time, I bought into the whole muscle building magazine trap.  I truly believed that the articles in said magazines were pure gold.  All I needed to do was follow the routines laid out by the authors, and, boom!  I'd be "ripped" or "swole" or whatever else the kids are saying these days.

In truth, however, many of the routines you'll find in magazines, and across the interwebz, are absolute junk!

In most cases, unless your taking pharmaceuticals (e.g. - steriods), you likely will not be able to keep up with the volume and the intensity prescribed by the authors of mainstream muscle building articles.

Whether this revelation is welcome relief, or the last thing you wanted to hear, this statement is the truth.

BUT....

There is still hope.  If you use the exercises and the routine I lay out in this post, and if you have your nutrition in line (Read This), and if you're persistent, YOU WILL SEE RESULTS.

THE BASICS OF SHOULDER ANATOMY

When many people think of the shoulder, they often don't realize that it actually consists of three distinct "heads" - the anterior deltoids (also called the front delts); the medial deltoids (also called the side or lateral delts); and the posterior deltoids (also called the rear delts).

Often times, people misconstrue the shoulder press as a "catch all" exercise for the shoulders, but in reality, the shoulder press (though it is an excellent exercise) really only targets the front delts, and the side delts to a lesser degree.  Because of this misconception, the side and the rear delts often get neglected.  Though exercises like rows and chins will certainly hit the rear delts to a certain extent, in my experience, and the experience of many others, rows and chins are not enough to optimally stimulate the rear delts.  A similar situation rings true for the front delts.  While some people certainly can get away with using only bench presses for their anterior shoulder development, most people need direct work.  Oh...and the poor medial delt; just like the poor middle child, the medial delt goes oft ignored and neglected.  The case of the medial delt is quite a shame, really, because it actually has the greatest potential to add width to your physique.  In other words, a good shoulder routine does not exclude exercises which target the medial delts.

And let's not forget the rotator cuff...

The rotator cuff (which is really a number of muscles) facilitates the internal rotation, abduction, and adduction of the shoulder.  While working this muscle group will not give you the much sought after "broad shouldered" look directly, neglecting to work this muscle group could potentially hamper your results. Having a strong rotator cuff is necessary for keeping your shoulders healthy so that you can have a strong base upon which to build those manly (or womanly, women can want strong shoulders too; and, by the way, if you are a woman, you will not grow massive shoulders) shoulders you've so desperately sought after.

PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER

Now, to get to the point of this article....

An effective shoulder routine will not only contain the right exercises to target each component of the shoulder, but it will also prescribe the best frequency, volume, and intensity for optimal results.  

While you can certainly grow muscle using a variety of methods, I've personally had the greatest success working in the 4-8 rep range, using 75-85% of my 1 repetition max.  Moreover, I recommend using up to 4 sets per muscle group (in this case each particular shoulder head), hitting them with a frequency of every 5-7 days.  

I know what your saying - "but so-and-so said this, that, and the other!"

I say - "So what?!"

"So-and-so" may, more likely than not, be taking steriods and/or be an elite athlete.  You, likely, are neither of these things.

For the average guy or gal just looking to put on an appreciable amount of muscle for the purpose of looking good at the beach, the volume, frequency, and intensity I mention above will more than do the trick.  

Some people try to complicate things with unnecessary fluff, only to give up in the long term because the plan they followed wasn't suited for them as a lifestyle.  DON'T MAKE THAT SAME MISTAKE!

Rather, do this - 

THE ULTIMATE SHOULDER WORKOUT

1.  SHOULDER PRESS -  4 work sets of 4-8 reps:  

• Warm-up with 1 set of 8 reps at 50% of your target work weight, then do 1 set of 6 reps at 50%, 1 set of 3 reps at 75%, and finally 1 set of 1 rep at 90%.  Rest 1 minute between warm-up sets, and rest 2 minutes before beginning your first work set.

• The military press/shoulder press/overhead press is one of the best exercises you can do for your front delts.  Leave front raises for the sissies.  Any of the following varieties will work - Seated Shoulder Press (Video), Standing Shoulder Press (Video), Seated Dumbbell Press (Video), Standing Dumbbell Press (Video), or Dumbbell Arnold Press (Video).

2.  LATERAL RAISE - 4 sets of 4-8 reps, or just 6-8 if you have trouble with form:  

• Do 1 light warm-up set of 8 reps at 50% of your target work weight.

• The Lateral Raise (Video) is a great exercise for targeting the medial delts.

3.  REAR DELT RAISE - 4 sets of 4-8 reps, or just 6-8 if you have trouble with form:

• Once again, this is a great exercise which you can do either Seated (Video) or Standing (Video).

4.  EXTERNAL ROTATION - 4 sets of 6-8 reps:

• REMEMBER! - Do Not Neglect Your Rotator Cuff!  

• Lying External Rotations (Video) or Upright Rows with External Rotation (Video) are great options.

Once you can get the top number of reps for a given exercise, add 5-10lbs of weight, and work with that weight until you can reach the top number of reps again.  For optimal results, rest about 3 minutes between work sets.

THERE YOU HAVE IT!

That's it, that's all you have to do.  Do this workout every 5-7 days, and make sure your nutrition is in line, and I promise you results.  The key, here, is to get progressively stronger over the long haul.  There are no quick fixes, but, with hard work and persistence, you'd be surprised at what you can accomplish!

So what are you waiting for?  GET TO IT!

Supplement Review - "Commander Go Pack"

I recently was asked to give my thoughts on a supplement (actually, it's a supplement package) called "Commander Go Pack."  Its marketers sing its praises, touting it as an effective fat loss supplement and performance enhancer; quote -

The ingredients of the Commander Go Pack are designed to work in synergy with one another to increase metabolism, reduce cravings, help control appetite, boost energy levels, reduce cortisol levels and even help you sleep better at night. All of these things combined make the Commander Go Pack the ideal product to help speed up your weight loss program and get you what you are looking for… RESULTS!

 Well....does their product live up to such a tall order; that being "RESULTS?"  Let's take a look.

First Impressions

One quick glance at the ingredients list of Commander Go Pack is enough to tell me, right from the get-go, that this product will likely work.

Wait?  What?!

Yeah, it will work.  BUT....

The Catch 22

The reason this supplement will work (as an aid to fat loss; used in conjunction with an intelligently designed nutritional program) is the same reason coffee will work.

This supplement is absolutely loaded with caffeine sources:  Caffeine Anhydrous, Cocoa Extract, Green Tea, and Green Coffee Bean Extract (which, by the way, is no better than good old regular coffee).

Caffeine has demonstrated a wonderful ability to increase fat oxidation (that's fat burning), improved focus (in university aged students, it can actually yield cognitive improvements), improved energy, appetite suppression, etc.  It can even work as an excellent performance enhancer for exercisers.  People may think I'm crazy for doing this, but just this morning I was drinking coffee in between sets of deadlifts (and I set a personal record of 5x365lbs; not a lot, but it's an improvement).

At any rate, I can assure you that any supplement or beverage which contains caffeine will likely help with fat burning.  I liken fat burning supplements which contain caffeine to muscle building supplements which contain creatine.

After a Closer Look

Not to leave you without a more thorough investigation of this supplement, I've attached links below to sites which will tell you more about the ingredients in Commander Go Pack.  Though some of these ingredients may have some merit, most of them can be found in whole foods like eggs, fish, beef, poultry, dairy (if you can tolerate it), organ meats, and a variety of fruits and vegetables.  Moreover, several of these ingredients have negligible, if any, viable evidence backing up their usage.  Additionally, I have no idea what dosage of each supplement Commander's manufacturers have put into their product.  Experience tells me that the dosages are likely far from clinically effective.

Niacin (B3)

B6

Caffeine Anhydrous

Picamilon

Hordenine

Tyramine

Cocoa Extract

Huperzine A

Choline Betartrate

DMAE

Sulbutiamine

Bacopa Monniera

Beta Phenylethylamine HCL

Green Tea

Coleous Forskohli

Evodiamine

Cayenne Pepper

Synephrine

Green Coffee Bean Extract

Guarana Extract

Yohimbe

Diiodotyrosine (couldn't find an adequate source on this one due to its highly technical nature.  Suffice it to say that it is an important component of thyroid function, though I doubt its necessity as a supplement for anyone without pre-existing thyroid issues.  It can be found naturally in seaweed.)

My Recommendation

This bugger is not cheap!  It does, however, come with a 110% money back guarantee.  Having said that, let me be blunt - DON'T BOTHER WASTING YOUR TIME!!!!  Some people may experience some benefits from taking this supplement, but I suspect these people would get just as good benefits from taking caffeine supplements or by drinking coffee or tea.  

People seem so ready to jump on fat loss or muscle building supplements with the thought in mind that this or that supplement is going to be the "game changer."  

Let me tell you, supplements are not "game changers!"  The real game changer is making a lifestyle change; one that entails proper nutrition, intelligent training, adequate sleep, and stress management.  More importantly, this lifestyle change has to be enjoyable, and doable for the long haul.  THERE ARE NO QUICK FIXES.

Why I Have a Problem With Vegetarianism - Part III: Dietary Fat's Role in Causing Breast Cancer?

For my regular readers, I apologize for it having been so long since my last post.  School and assignments and work have all conspired to keep me away.  But, now that I have some free time, let's get back to this issue I have with vegetarianism.

In my last post I addressed the assertion from The China Study that animal protein is directly causative of cancer via its effect on serum levels of cholesterol. Hopefully I adequately conveyed the very real problem with such a claim.  Animal protein, much opposed to what Campbell claims in his book, is actually associated with a lower risk of cancer in comparison to plant based sources of protein.  However, such a realization is hardly capable of indicting plant protein of malicious crimes.

In today's post, I'll continue to piggyback on Denise Minger's article, The China Study: Fact or Fallacy?.  The next critique she has in her article addresses Campbell's claim that dietary fat is somehow causative of breast cancer.  Let's dig in!

Point # 2 of Minger's Critique

Campbell makes the following claim in his book:

Breast cancer is associated with dietary fat (which is associated with animal protein intake) and inversely with age at menarche (women who reach puberty at younger ages have a greater risk of breast cancer).

According to Minger, Campbell is correct in stating that breast cancer is associated with dietary fat; however, Minger is quick to point out that Campbell, in making this claim, misses a number of important factors outside of dietary fat which more strongly correlate with breast cancer risk:

Blood glucose level: +36**

Wine intake: +33*

Alcohol intake: +31*

Yearly fruit consumption: +25

Percentage of population working in industry: +24

Hexachlorocyclohexane in food: +24

Processed starch and sugar intake: +20

Corn intake: +20

Daily beer intake: +19

Legume intake: +17

What you see above is a list of varying lifestyle and dietary factors which all associate with an increased risk of suffering breast cancer.  In addition to these factors, age has a -20 correlation with breast cancer (thus, the younger a woman begins her first menstruation, the greater chance she has of having breast cancer*), and dietary fat, as a percentage of total calories, has a +18 correlation with breast cancer, and "total lipid intake" has a +22 correlation.  If you can notice, you'll see that sugar, alcohol, having an industrial occupation, hexachlorocyclohexane (read this if you don't know what this is), and a host of other factors have associations with breast cancer that either equal or exceed the risk presented by dietary fat.  As Minger asks:  "why is Campbell singling out fat from animal products when other—stronger—correlations are present?"  (this is a rhetorical question)

Minger further states the following:

Certainly, consuming dairy and meat from hormone-injected livestock may logically raise breast cancer risk due to increased exposure to hormones, but this isn’t grounds for generalizing all animal products as causative for this disease (read this and this and this). Nor is a correlation of +18 for fat calories grounds for indicting fat as a breast cancer risk factor, when alcohol, processed sugar, and starch correlate even more strongly. (Animal protein itself, for the record, correlates with breast cancer at +12—which is lower than breast cancer’s correlation with light-colored vegetables, legume intake, fruit, and a number of other purportedly healthy plant foods.)

Take Home Point

I'm sure you've heard this statement from me multiple times, but here it is again:  REDUCTIONISM IS A MISTAKE!!!!

It is next to impossible to look at this or that variable say "aha! We've found the cause of all our health woes!"  There is no one variable, and Campbell only shoots himself in the foot by trying to demonize animal protein and dietary fat.  There are so many other variables worth our attention!  (i.e. - sugar laden, hydrogenated vegetable oil infested, calorie dense, nutrient sparse, hyper-rewarding, unsatisfying, addiction-forming, crap food).

Next Time

In my next post we'll take a look at Campbell's claim that animal products are associated with liver cancer (I know, more cancer, but just hold on.  I'm going somewhere with all of this).

*I've read before (though I can't remember where) that higher calorie intake at a young age is associated with an early start for menstruation in women.  Thus, childhood and adolescent obesity and over-weighted-ness is more likely causative of breast cancer risk later in life.  This propensity for being overweight has much more to do with exposure to hyper-rewarding junk food at an early age than with animal protein and fat.