This study dealt only with an under-50 age group, but a group of over-50 subjects was also studied, with the result that even when their weight decreased, their waistlines did not follow suit.
A possible solution to this "age-and-expand" dilemma is found in the suggestion to gradually increase time or intensity of exercise as we age.
That isn't something that I wanted to hear as I start slowing down, but I won't worry about it until another source verifies it .
People interested in sciatica might find the following information interesting. It is extracted from an article in the May 1997 issue of RUNNER'S WORLD magazine on the subject of Piriformis Syndrome.
The piriformis muscle, one of the Deep Six Hip Rotator Muscle Group, located between portions of the hip girdle and the upper femur, on or near the Greater Trochanter; is proximal to the sciatic nerve. If that muscle gets inflamed for any reason, it can impinge on the sciatic nerve resulting in a potentially severe pain that radiates from your butt down the back of your leg. It can be debilitating - not just a nuisance. This condition can be aggravated by running or even just sitting. Also from getting up from a sitting position, crossing your legs in a sitting position, or extending or lifting your leg out to the side. Sciatica may also be a symptom of a more serious problem, like a herniated lumbar (low back) disk, or a torn hamstring (a three-muscle group in the back of your thigh).
A test that you can do on your own to determine the presence of Piriformis Syndrome is to lay on your side, with the "bad" side up and the upper leg slightly flexed. Raise it 8-10 inches and hold it for 30 seconds. If you feel butt pain, it is likely that you have IT.
What can I do about it? You can try gentle stretching, ultra-sound, and anti-inflammatory drugs. When stretching, target the hamstrings and hip abductors. Ice may also help. If none of these treatments work, see a health professional - chiropractor, physical therapist, orthopedist, witch doctor, or whatever.
What can be done about the somewhat disheartening fact that 10-20% of coronary-artery bypass surgery (CABG) done in the U.S. is done close to a previous CABG? That is, they don't last - the grafts typically get clogged up again (an "occlusion" in technobabble) - atherosclerosis all over again. What to do?
One thing that helps is to begin taking aspirin, or some other anticoagulant, early after initial surgery. This regimen can be successfully used for up to a year. Or so says the January 16, 1997 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
For long-term success, lowering LDL (cholesterol bad-guy) is very important. It seems that lipid (fat; and cholesterol is a fat) accumulation may become a problem after about a year.
The article goes on to push the idea that lipid lowering drugs are the solution, and in some circumstances they probably are; but, it makes sense to me that a first CABG would be a sign that a lifesyle change or two might be in order. Like healthy eating and regular exercise. For those who can't or won't change, drugs and more surgeries are most likely in store.
Can exercise prevent breast cancer? Maybe, according to a large study done in Norway and reported in the May 1, 1997 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. Breast cancer was significantly reduced in the exercising versus nonexercising group. However, the relationship between reduced risk of getting breast cancer and exercising is not unequivocally proven. Exercise may turn out not be the critical piece of the puzzle. Exercisers as a group, smoke less, use less alcohol, are less likely to be overfat, and are likely to follow a different kind of diet than the nonexercisers. Any of these, or other, factors may be the critical component, rather than exercise itself.
The bottom line is that even if exercise doesn't reduce the risk of breast cancer, it is still highly recommended for its known benefits - including lowering overall mortality, incidences of coronary heart disease, diabetes milletus, stroke, osteoporosis, obesity, disability, and reduces some of the effects of chronic conditions like arthritis and cognitive decline (not just forgetfulness, but mental processes tend to slow down).
Following are updates to previously described exercises (in earlier Newsletter issues).
Overhead Lateral Raise - This is a variation on the Side Lateral Raise exercise done to work the middle of the deltoid muscles of the shoulders. This is commonly done by raising dumbbells out to the sides to roughly shoulder height. The "Overhead" version requires that the dumbbells are raised to the full overhead position. This may require rotating your wrists from the palms down (pronated) position to the palms up (supinated) position. This variation works through a full range-of-motion to improve the shoulder's flexibility; and lighter than normal weights should be used. The muscles used are the deltoids, supraspinatus (part of the "rotator cuff"), trapezeus, serratus anterior, and the levator scapulae (they attach at the base of the skull and connect to the upper, inner portion of the shoulder blades (scapulae).
Leg Extension - This open chain leg exercise (more appropriately called "knee extensions," since leg extension is initiated from the hip) may be done on a special chair or bench on which your knees are supported by a set of pads, your knees are bent 90°, and your ankles are behind another set of pads. You straighten your knees against the resistance of an adjustable weight stack or weight plates. This exercise may also be done by sitting in a chair and straightening your knees with either your body weight (legs) or ankle weights as resistance.
So far this is just standard stuff, but an article in the May 1997 issue of Muscle and Fitness magazine contradicted what I have read repeatedly over the years, and that is that this exercise is the only one where a joint can be safely locked. M&F says knee injuries can result from full extension, and; therefore, recommend using a weight that you can hold for 2-3 seconds in the straight-knee position. That makes eminent sense to me. Use a weight that you can really handle.
Here are some bits and pieces of useful information: 1) with your thighs on the seat, work your legs through a 90° to 180° range only (i.e., don't let your feet go back under the seat); and 2) for maximum contraction of all front thigh muscles (quadriceps), rotate your feet slightly outward and; 3) for maximum contraction of the rectus femoris muscle (largest quadriceps muscle) lean back 45° - note that some knee extension machines have a fixed back that won't accommodate the leaned back position.
I still generally prefer closed chain exercises like squats, leg presses, or lunges; but for those that must do knee extensions, please follow the 2-3 second hold recommendation.
Incline Shrug - This final exercise update is a variation on the very familiar standing shoulder shrug. For this bit of fun you need a bench that can be adjusted so that it becomes a chair with the back angled at 45°. For you purists, that is 135°. Or is it? I never was very good at math. Anyway, you should be sitting on the bench facing the back; that is, leaning forward against the angled seat-back. You are holding dumbbells with your arms hanging straight down. Now shrug your shoulders up toward your ears and lower as far as you can (the classic I-don't-know movement). Do this exercise without jerking your shoulders up and down - slow and controlled, as always. This is good for your posture.
The weight training "stuff" that follows is a response to an interesting multi-part question that recently came across my path - submitted by N.M.K.F. of Las Vegas, NV.:
What is the difference between muscle strength training and muscle endurance training; and does weight training benefit aerobic conditioning? I always thought that high resistance/low reps worked fast twitch muscle fibers, which are anaerobic; and that low resistance/high reps worked slow twitch muscle fibers, which are aerobic. So wouldn't fast twitch fibers have minimal impact on aerobic conditioning?
There are several issues wrapped up in this question. First, muscle strength training, per se, is going-for-the-max, like an Olympic weight lifter - one lift, maximum weight. This person would train in the 1-3 reps range with very heavy weight.
The muscle endurance trainer wants to increase strength, but for lifting a weight many times (typically 12 or more repetitions) - muscle tone is more important than brute strength. There is a kind of mid-ground here, one who uses moderately heavy weights for 6-10 reps, and wants primarily muscle building (body shaping).
All of these people gain in strength, but at different levels.
Now about fast twitch (FT)/slow twitch (ST) fibers - you don't typically train just one type.
A little simplified anatomy is in order before going any further. The fibers in a muscle are organized into bundles, and are connected to a nerve, forming what is called a "motor unit."
The brain evaluates what the eyes show that a particular body is intending to lift, and recruits motor units to do the job. This isn't a foolproof system, however. For example, someone hands you a balloon that turns out to be a 25 lb medicine ball, and guess what? You drop it! Now, back to the point. FT and ST fibers are not mixed in motor units. Furthermore, ST fibers are recruited first, and can easily handle the balloon, and maybe even the medicine ball. Now, if your ball turns into a 150 lb barbell, more motor units would need to be recruited. Once the ST fibers are used up, FT fibers are recruited to help.
The final issue in this question that begs some kind of response is about the impact of weight training on aerobic conditioning. And I am talking about anaerobic weight training, not aerobics classes where tiny weights are waved around - basically still aerobic exercise. There is virtually no direct aerobic conditioning resulting from anaerobic weight training - maybe a modest amount if you are circuit training. But, anaerobic weight training does improve vascularity in exercised muscles, and; therefore, increased oxygen-carrying capacity. But it is still aerobic exercise that utilizes the increased capacity.
I have recently been looking into the nutritional qualities of amaranth and quinoa, in particular, the quality of the protein, which is a substantial component of these plant sources.
Let's back up slightly: these two so-called" supergrains," are not actually grains at all (they are "seeds"); but we won't quibble over categorization. They were cultivated long ago in South America - amaranth by the Aztecs, and quinoa by the Incas The use of these "grains" was eliminated by the Spanish Conquistadors, who apparently perceived some religious aspects of its use. Since their rediscovery, they are now being cultivated in Asia and South America, and even more recently, in parts of the U.S.
Amaranth, unlike actual grains, is not lacking in the amino acid lysine, so it contains all "essential" amino acids and can be called "complete" protein. In addition to a relatively high (for a grain source) protein content, amaranth contains a high level of calcium (again, for a grain source). It is also high in folacin, magnesium, and is especially high in iron. It has a higher level of iron than any othergrain source except quinoa.
Cooked amaranth has a strong taste that is unpleasant to some people, so it is best cooked as a smaller portion in a mixture of foods - to more-or-less mask its flavor.
Some cooking suggestions are to cook it with another grain in apple juice and serve it with yogurt and fresh fruit, or as a thickener in soups or stew.
Quinoa, the other "supergrain" that isn't really a grain, has a lighter taste, and is much more palatable [At least to me.]. It provides high levels of iron (for a grain); and high levels of potassium, riboflavin, folacin, magnesium, phosphorus, copper, and zink. Like amaranth, it is a good protein source. Both amaranth and quinoa contain some fat, in addition to protein and carbohydrates - quinoa has less fat, especially the saturated variety - although neither is considered high-fat.
Both should be rinsed before cooking because they are protected in their natural states from insects and birds by a bitter substance that needs to be washed off. These products are normally prewashed in the U.S. before sale, but should be rinsed anyway.
Quinoa can be used with, or instead of, pilaf or baked grain casseroles. Add it to soups. Even to salads. Be creative with this healthy "stuff."
Have you ever been intimidated into feeling the need to take nutritional supplements because of claims that U.S. soil is so depleted of minerals that we are risking our health by eating food from domestically grown crops? We shouldn't be, according to an article in the June 1997 Berkeley Wellness Letter. Dr. W. Shaw Reid, the director of the Cornell Nutrient Analysis Lab says that use of improved fertilizers and farming techniques have actually made our farmland soil richer than ever.
If our soil was as depleted as supplement pushers claim, we couldn't even grow crops. Vitamins in plants are created by the plants themselves. Minerals (like phosphorus, iodine, calcium, potassium, copper, iron, selenium, fluoride, molybdenum, and zinc; however, must come from the soil. What the soil lacks is largely supplemented by fertilizers
Also from the Berkeley Wellness Letter comes a response to an idea being promoted by a tape of a lecture called Dead Doctors Don't Lie , which pushes an elixir of "colloidal minerals" ("Colloidal" simply means that the minerals are suspended in a liquid.) - one of those "cures everything" concoctions. That it is claimed to cure or prevent everything under the sun is the first clue that it is probably snake oil.
The origin of the elixir(s) seems to be essentially a fairy tale - that long ago (prehistoric times) some Indians in Utah knew of a spring with special healing powers. Supposedly, in 1925 a rancher found the mineral remains, extracted the minerals, and distributed them to friends and neighbors [Presumably with astonishing results.] There are now numerous companies claiming to sell the "real thing." Colloidal mineral elixirs usually look like muddy water, and cost between $25 and $50 for a month's supply. Those who sell this stuff claim that we only absorb 5% of the minerals in "normal" food, but close to 100% in the colloidal variety, which has a natural negative electrical charge that allows them to be absorbed at the higher rate, and to flush out toxins that are attracted to them. They further claim that the poor absorption rate in normal food is due to its positive charge, which causes toxic buildup. (Many of the minerals that we need in minute amounts, are toxic at higher levels.)
BUT, scientists do not support these claims. They say that the charge on a mineral shouldn't have anything to do with its absorption rate, and that their being in a colloidal suspension, or not, is of no significance. Furthermore, some of the minerals in some colloidal mineral elixirs have no proven use in the human body. As previously noted, some minerals can be toxic, so even if colloidal minerals had a higher absorption rate, that would not always be desirable. Also, there have been claims that clinical tests have been performed on these elixirs, but there seem to be no published results.
The conclusion: get your minerals from fruits and vegetables.
For quite some time, estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) has been recommended to begin at the first signs of menopause, and to be continued for at least 10 years to help with the maintenance of bone density. New findings suggest that starting ERT after age 60 may be as effective as starting it at menopause. It seems that consistent use of estrogen is more important than taking it for a few years and then stopping.
can't be seen.